Issue of Roylaties of Elvis selling these in 73'

[PEP]

Using an inflation calculator taking 1973 dollars and comparing them to 2007 dollar's some 34 years later, the amount of $5 million Elvis and Parker were paid for Elvis' RCA roylaities worked out to $24.5 million in 2007 dollars.

But, what would these royalties really be worth today?

$50 million?
$75 million?
$100 million or more?

How much of a difference in the amount that they could be worth today reflects that Elvis is No longer here?

Meaning if he were alive today would they only be worth the $24.5 million in 2007 dollars?

Which sounds like a lot.

But is it?

PEP

[Robert]

How about the copyright issues?
Part of the catalogue is free of use in the UK and elsewhere..
Therefore his catalogue could be worth less as time passes by.

Besides that, I think 30 mio could be a fair guess.
Yet, the 1973 deal was one of the worst Elvis ever approved..
But he probably didn't consider his musical legacy that important?

5 million 1973 dollars may sound huge, but after taxes and other costs the amount wasn't that impressive anymore.
Didn't the old bastard also get 25%?

[PEP]

How about the copyright issues?
Part of the catalogue is free of use in the UK and elsewhere..
Therefore his catalogue could be worth less as time passes by.

Besides that, I think 30 mio could be a fair guess.
Yet, the 1973 deal was one of the worst Elvis ever approved.
But he probably didn't consider his musical legacy that important?

5 million 1973 dollars may sound huge, but after taxes and other costs the amount wasn't that impressive anymore.
Didn't the old bastard also get 25%?

I agree with what you say Robert, but are you saying that Elvis still didn't get enough from RCA back in 73'?

By saying that are you saying the value was much higher at the time and RCA ripped Elvis off for the time period when the deal was made?

If they did in your opinion, what should the value have been back then and is it only the value that One puts on it now only because of what we know today then rather what was the reality of yesterday if you know what I mean.

Just like today, if for the sake of argument Elvis is still alive he decides to sell today, is $24.5 the real value?

You say $30 million, then that would have meant only an extra million or two back maybe back in 73'.

Right?

On the other side of the coin if we now pretend Elvis did not die in 77' in return the value over the years wouldn't have been the same either as far as getting the huge boost in value because of his dying in 77' like he did.

Thus all this means is Elvis' value became what it is today because he did die when he did only and for No other reason.

We can say that if he would have lived his catalogue would have been larger and in return there would have been further increase in value by the increase in catalogue by default, but the reality it wouldn't have been as much as it is considered today by some because he did die when he did.

Thus inreturn then maybe for what it was, it wasn't that bad of a deal that everyone thinks.

An is only the thought of a bad deal because of what we know today, an again is only because he died if that makes sense.

Or would any of you still rate Elvis' value much higher whether he lived or died when he did irregardless in the real world?


PEP

[epf]

It was my understanding that this deal was made to generate lot of money very quickly, amongst others to compensate for the rising costs as a result of his divorce.
Also, it is not only what you have but what you do with what you have. For example, the "old" catalogue was reissued and repackaged while Elvis was still alive, making him in fact compete with his "old" material. That would be a tough cookie for anyone.
My point is: by selling the "old" catalogue the catalogue as a whole was split. The "old" cataloge had proven its worth already and by selling it it became a obstacle of sorts for Elvis's new (then present day)catalogue: he was no longer facing competition from other artists but now from himself as well and as a result that weakened his "new" catalogue.

For a control freak like Parker to give up these rights, the need for money must have been enormous. My guess would be that RCA sensed this and got a bargain.

It was a shortsighted decison to generate quick cash, but that seems to be the repetitive pattern in Elvis' career, sadly.

[Little Darlin]

If Elvis was alive today I don't think EPE would be as well off as it is now. Having said that I don't think it was RCA who ripped Elvis off I think it was the Colonel. IMO in 1973 Elvis behaviour was a bit erratic to say the least so maybe the Colonel was willing to offload his catalogue for this amount so he wouldn't lose out.

How much did Jacko pay for the Beatles catalogue again? at leat the remaining Beatles still got their 50% though.

On the other hand if Elvis was still alive he would have had a better Manager as Paker would have been too old, so who can say for certain which way the new Manager would have taken Elvis.

[Robert]

are you saying that Elvis still didn't get enough from RCA back in 73'?

Easy to judge afterwards.. as we now know the catalogue was highly profitable after '73 and still is.
$5 mln was not enough, but when this deal was made it was probably hard to judge.

Were similar deals made with popular artists in the 70's?
Would be nice to know for comparison..

[PEP]

It was my understanding that this deal was made to generate lot of money very quickly, amongst others to compensate for the rising costs as a result of his divorce.
Also, it is not only what you have but what you do with what you have. For example, the "old" catalogue was reissued and repackaged while Elvis was still alive, making him in fact compete with his "old" material. That would be a tough cookie for anyone.

Good point epf, out of curiosity in your opinion was there anything stopping Elvis from re issuing his old catalogue prior to the deal other than Elvis or Parker not realising the value for reissued work on their own?

Meaning would RCA have allowed it or thought in this same direction without the deal?

Did they have that power to shut it down if Elvis and Parker came up with reissuing old material through RCA on their own? An would they have done so?

Would the Legend series have even have taken place then, if there wouldn't have been a deal?

Was this all calculated by RCA that Elvis and Parker sign the deal as they as a corporation knew the value and were hoping Elvis and Parker didn't?

Anyone else like to comment of that too?

PEP

[midnightx]

It is always easy to look back in hindsight. This deal was desperate, short-sighted (one of Parker's weaknesses) and simply for the cash.

$5.4 Million was a lot of money back in 1973. Elvis' studio work was no longer selling huge quantities as it had done in the past. While the back-catalogue had value, it obviously was not seen as valuable as it is today, otherwise the price would have been higher. Parker did not negotiate the best deal possible. But in 1973, how much more could Elvis have gotten in this deal?

This trend has been going on for decades. Artists make deals that ultimately screw them long-term. Robert Plant sold his rights to the Zeppelin catalogue in the mid-80's - and he was financially secure. There are a multitude of reasons why these deals go down. It happens.

[Robert]

Robert Plant sold his rights to the Zeppelin catalogue in the mid-80's - and he was financially secure.

You know how many $'s were involved?

[midnightx]

Robert Plant sold his rights to the Zeppelin catalogue in the mid-80's - and he was financially secure.

You know how many $'s were involved?

It has never been revealed. But it is well-known that he did it and he has even referenced the situation before many times in interviews stating he sold his rights to Zeppelin's catalogue years ago. However, he still has involvment with publishing and has veto power over the band's catalogue. He is one of the reasons little archival material has been released because he still has a vote. Still, Plant is estimated to worth at least 50 million pounds.

[likethebike]

Timing is everything. In 1973 this probably did not seem like too much of a bad deal because the reissue boom was still in its infancy. If Elvis hadn't have died setting off a sales frenzy, the deal still would not have been in his best interests. Leaving aside the Colonel's cut, the divorce payoff, taxes, etc. which left Elvis with only a fraction of the sales, the value of his catalogue was already established. Ever since they came out, these recordings sold and continued to sell. RCA's deal was already profitable with a series of half million selling albums with no royalties and no new production costs. That's not even including sales outside the US. The $5 million becomes even more of bargain because part of RCA's reasoning for the deal was to clear up disputes over back overseas royalties. Who knows what they actually owed Elvis and Parker there? Additionally, Elvis by 1973 should have had ownership of at least some of his masters.

There was no way RCA could have known about the reissue boom in the 1980s that increased the worth of every back catalogue but they knew the deal would be in their best interests and that this was a bargain price. Elvis' catalogue, even had he lived would have remained high, with the re-issue boom especially because these are some of the most popular hits of all time. As pointed out, keeping a hand in the catalogue would have let Elvis and the Colonel control a little bit and prevent interference with the new work.

You also have to remember that royalty rights are not just about sales. They also involve the highly lucrative use of Elvis performances in movies, tv shows and commercials which BMG has made liberal use of in the past years. To pay the true value of catalogue of that time would probably not have been within the company's then financial capacity. I would guess as things turned out, it may have saved the company in the area of $50 million to $100 million.

Selling it today there are several factors that put the artists behind the eight ball like the death of the CD and oldies radio and as mentioned before the EU copyright limit. Still though it would be worth more than $25 million.

By the way, when Elvis made the deal he was pretty hot as a recording artists coming off MSG, "Burning Love" and Aloha, he and Parker had no way of predicting that his current work would fall out of favor so quickly.

[N880EP]

I remember much of the fandom (probably myself included) blaming The Col. by default for this "sale."

That pretty much changed when Nash's book came out clarifying that Parker was against it, but EP & Vernon insisted ............. for immediate cash in hand secondary to EP's divorce that same year.

Both EP & Vernon lived in the moment and didn't give much thought to the future. Short-term gain & damn the long-term consequences (out-of-sight, out-of-mind) ---> it's pretty common and also human nature (on a number of levels).


All my best,
N8
... just a fan ....

PS - Vernon did a lot of "rash" stuff while EP was alive (firing The Wests without adequate compensation, getting mixed up in other bad business deals) and after EP died (the stories here are quite telling because Vernon was in even worse condition and not thinking rationally). Vernon always criticized EP in this area, but ...... was himself ............. guilty of the same - on different levels.

[Joe Car]

I remember much of the fandom (probably myself included) blaming The Col. by default for this "sale."

That pretty much changed when Nash's book came out clarifying that Parker was against it, but EP & Vernon insisted ............. for immediate cash in hand secondary to EP's divorce that same year.

Both EP & Vernon lived in the moment and didn't give much thought to the future. Short-term gain & damn the long-term consequences (out-of-sight, out-of-mind) ---> it's pretty common and also human nature (on a number of levels).


All my best,
N8
... just a fan ....

PS - Vernon did a lot of "rash" stuff while EP was alive (firing The Wests without adequate compensation, getting mixed up in other bad business deals) and after EP died (the stories here are quite telling because Vernon was in even worse condition and not thinking rationally). Vernon always criticized EP in this area, but ...... was himself ............. guilty of the same - on different levels.

Nice to see you posting again N8, one question about Vernon that perhaps you can clear up. Is it true that the West cousins and Dave Hebler were supposed to be given $5,000 a piece from Vernon as per instruction from Elvis, when they were fired, but instead Vernon pocketed most of the money and gave them one weeks salary each?

[drjohncarpenter]

That pretty much changed when Nash's book came out clarifying that Parker was against it, but EP & Vernon insisted ............. for immediate cash in hand secondary to EP's divorce that same year.

Both EP & Vernon lived in the moment and didn't give much thought to the future.

The veracity of much of 2003's The Colonel: The Extraordinary Story of Colonel Tom Parker and Elvis Presley is open to question, unfortunately.

And there should be no dispute that management was as least as invested in short term profit as Elvis and his father -- in fact, it was standard operating procedure at Boxcar Enterprises for years.

[likethebike]

Elvis and Vernon definitely have to take a share of blame. It couldn't be done without his signature. But they wanted money. Parker deserves some blame because could have dug up a nice sum elsewhere.

[N880EP]

Nice to see you posting again N8, one question about Vernon that perhaps you can clear up. Is it true that the West cousins and Dave Hebler were supposed to be given $5,000 a piece from Vernon as per instruction from Elvis, when they were fired, but instead Vernon pocketed most of the money and gave them one weeks salary each?

Hi Joe,

Thanks for your kind words. (My "EP-Moods" wax & wane over time.)

It wasn't a matter of Vernon "pocketing" the dough, but rather, .... a matter of him not be wanting to pay out in the first place (Vernon tended to all the bills / payments that went into / came out of Graceland). I'm surprised Vernon even gave them a single weeks pay (in Vernon's eyes, that was enough). Vernon honestly felt that those around EP got more than they deserved over the years, anyway (cars, gifts, cash gifts, etc.).

Btw, ...... EP was also using his father as a convenient excuse ----> Remember in The Red West Telephone Conversation of '76 when EP says that he had nothing to do with that (their firing)? Well, ....... not completely true.

EP wanted the guys gone and Vernon was more than happy to oblige. The rest, as they say, is history.

---------------------

Re: Nash's "Col." book

All books need to be read with a critical mind and there are parts that I question / don't agree with.

If The Col. was against the royalties deal, then he was, no doubt, also against it for reason that suited his needs / purposes as well.

Generally speaking: I'm not a Col. Parker basher and I personally feel that (as with most of EP's problems) .... the blame for much of what Parker got away with lies squarely in EP's lap - first & foremost. Their relationship was a complex one based on co-dependency.



All my best,
N8
... just a fan ....

[drjohncarpenter]

Generally speaking: I'm not a Col. Parker basher and I personally feel that (as with most of EP's problems) .... the blame for much of what Parker got away with lies squarely in EP's lap - first & foremost. Their relationship was a complex one based on co-dependency.

Agree here, although even non-bashers must agree that management's counsel, direction and creativity circa 1962 and after is highly suspect.

[Luuk]

In hindsight we all know how the game should have been played, how the star should have been managed, how the world should have been ruled.

[epf]

In hindsight we all know how the game should have been played, how the star should have been managed, how the world should have been ruled.

In order to look forward, you've got to dare to look back.

[likethebike]

Luuk- With respect an advisor like the Colonel has to know what's coming and what's happening in order to be effective? In the 1950s he did this in recognizing the importance of television while it was still in its relative infancy and in recognizing the impact of his particular artist on television. He also showed foresight with stuff like the merchandising deal and Elvis' first contract with RCA which was pretty darn good for a regional singer. Even the army stint showed some foresight in making Elvis respectable as did teaming with Sinatra when he got out.

However, after 1960 Parker did not show a lot of foresight. Very often he didn't even know or seem to know what was going on. For instance, in 1959 Ray Charles got a deal with ABC records that gave in addition to a bunch of other perks eventual flat out ownership of his recordings. Parker should have demanded an immediate renegotiation of Elvis' contract. Even in his biggest year, Charles didn't sell Elvis. As the biggest star in the business before the arrival of the Beatles, Elvis demanded the best contract in the business and he didn't have it. You can see it later on his Vegas dealings. The long term Vegas contracts. Elvis' touring and album release schedule. The long term movie deals. The industry changed dramatically in these years and Parker didn't stay with the changes nor did he anticipate changes.