Anything about Elvis
More than 30 Million visitors can't be wrong

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Thu Dec 01, 2011 6:00 pm

When the idea was broached, Elvis was in desperate need of money primarily because of Priscilla’s new divorce attorney.


its a bit ironic that the the 'maybe' person that again maybe was the reason behind the need for the money, ended up paying for any demands in the long term ... karma

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Thu Dec 01, 2011 6:53 pm

The Welz wrote:But Elvis didn't think this way. He needed the money now and his manager -for different reasons- didn't think different. So it wasn't mismanagement at all. Elvis and Parker wanted the same and they got it.

Without a doubt, it was gross mismanagement to make that deal. As previously mentioned, this is still a deal that is looked upon as one of the biggest management errors in entertainment business history. There were other revenue streams that could have been tapped into. There other ways of getting advance funds on future income. There were also other lucrative deals that could have been made for touring and film work. Parker sold away the financial legacy of his artist's musical life work - and for his artist, for a paltry sum after commissions and taxes. Parker himself, got a windfall from the deal. Again, a manager has a duty to protect his artist's positions and income streams. Parker seriously failed his client on this deal.

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:22 pm

The part that's most tragic of all, is that Presley even bragged to family and friends at what a good deal his manager had got for him.

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Thu Dec 01, 2011 9:39 pm

Again, it was a error. Not some plan to hurt Elvis. Neither of them were looking into the future. If they were the deal would not have been done. And again it would not have happened without Elvis' permission. Jerry Schilling has said Elvis was thrilled with the deal. Because he was going to get paid a ton of money for doing absolutely nothing.

Elvis never cared about what his cut from any deal was. Elvis was happy as long as he was making enough money to buy the things he wanted to. That's what the people around him have said.

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Thu Dec 01, 2011 10:13 pm

Ironically, the buyout is in today's news, as EPE announced it will appeal a German court's refusal to give them a bigger share of Sony Germany's profits from Elvis' recordings.

According to The Commercial Appeal, "Sony acquired the song rights with RCA Records, which had paid Presley a $5.4 million lump sum in 1973. The estate argued the songs are now worth $130 million."

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Thu Dec 01, 2011 10:29 pm

Yes 130 million sounds much better! :roll: a pity Elvis didn't think of the future because it certainly was a VERY 'short sighted' deal!~ :|

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:25 pm

elvisjock wrote:Ironically, the buyout is in today's news, as EPE announced it will appeal a German court's refusal to give them a bigger share of Sony Germany's profits from Elvis' recordings.

According to The Commercial Appeal, "Sony acquired the song rights with RCA Records, which had paid Presley a $5.4 million lump sum in 1973. The estate argued the songs are now worth $130 million."


I just can't see how they think they can win that. do u think if we buy something at the Graceland crossing then find it cheaper nr 40 yrs later elsewhere, would they give us our Elvis duck money back?
I doubt very much if there's any loop holes in that RCA contract!

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:00 am

DEH wrote:Again, it was a error. Not some plan to hurt Elvis. Neither of them were looking into the future. If they were the deal would not have been done. And again it would not have happened without Elvis' permission. Jerry Schilling has said Elvis was thrilled with the deal. Because he was going to get paid a ton of money for doing absolutely nothing.
.


Well, you might could say that if Parker didn't walk away with more money than Elvis on the deal.

If Parker was an honest guy he wouldn't of made this deal on Elvis' behalf.

Truthfully Elvis didn't know enough about the business to make educated decisions on deals like this.

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:10 pm

I write again: in early 1973 Elvis was not desperate for money. He won a lot in 1972. Priscilla reopened the divorce case in May 1973 requiring more money AFTER the infamous buyout catalogue deal was done!!

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:04 pm

All this reminds me very much of Murry Wilson selling the Beach Boys catalogue for 700.000 $ in '69.

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Sun Oct 28, 2012 5:20 pm

I am not sure this is a 'great' topic. It's been discussed a million times before. Of course in HINDSIGHT the deal is appalling. But are fans really short sighted enough to think that the deal was made with Elvis dying in a few years in mind? The way out for Elvis was always to make more great music. Why would both he and the colonel not think that could happen in the future?

Maybe it was a great deal for Elvis as he couldn't take his money with him could he? Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush? Elvis always lived in the moment. Future finance was never a priority. Crikey, he gave most of his money away during life.

elvisonline

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:02 am

elvisonline wrote:I am not sure this is a 'great' topic. It's been discussed a million times before. Of course in HINDSIGHT the deal is appalling. But are fans really short sighted enough to think that the deal was made with Elvis dying in a few years in mind? The way out for Elvis was always to make more great music. Why would both he and the colonel not think that could happen in the future?

Maybe it was a great deal for Elvis as he couldn't take his money with him could he? Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush? Elvis always lived in the moment. Future finance was never a priority. Crikey, he gave most of his money away during life.

elvisonline

Why should Elvis have needed a "way out" after the atrocious buyout deal where he was put in a position to make "more great music?" Clearly Elvis was not producing significant amounts of "hit" material during the buyout era, so it is doubtful that Tom Parker felt a huge series of hits were around the corner. No one looks at this deal as a problem because Elvis would be dead within a few years. The problem is that a huge aspect of his financial legacy was essentially sold for a fraction of its future value. Why not just make a deal for a large advance on future royalties? Why sell the entire future earning potential for a one-time sum? Atrocious management.

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:06 am

Good Time Charlie wrote:The part that's most tragic of all, is that Presley even bragged to family and friends at what a good deal his manager had got for him.

A painful reminder of just how little business sense Elvis really had...

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Mon Oct 29, 2012 6:23 am

No sh*t. The deal sucked big time.

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Mon Oct 29, 2012 6:54 am

elvisonline wrote:I am not sure this is a 'great' topic. It's been discussed a million times before. Of course in HINDSIGHT the deal is appalling. But are fans really short sighted enough to think that the deal was made with Elvis dying in a few years in mind? The way out for Elvis was always to make more great music. Why would both he and the colonel not think that could happen in the future?

Maybe it was a great deal for Elvis as he couldn't take his money with him could he? Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush? Elvis always lived in the moment. Future finance was never a priority. Crikey, he gave most of his money away during life.

elvisonline


The problem is that the deal probably need Elvis' death to make it profitable. It was almost surely profitable before that. The two legendary performer sets had moved between them between one and a half million units before Elvis' death, Pure Gold put up similar numbers, the television compilations Elvis in Hollywood and Elvis had moved in the millions. Elvis-Fool moved about 300,000 according to Ernst notes and The Sun Sessions about the same. That's without a single unit moving overseas and any direct back catalog sales, and by 1973 both the 1971 Christmas LP and the 1957 LP (then available from Camden) had proven themselves big consistent annual movers. What's more, even in a pre-American Graffiti market, Elvis' hits had proven themselves as consistent back sellers. From 1956 to 1977 something like only 15 of his LPs had been deleted and his hits had proven themselves in repackaging time and time again, with the behemoth (for the time) boxed set Elvis' 50 Worldwide Gold Award Hits crashing the pop Top 50 less than three years prior. Further, although Graffiti had not yet been released, the oldies revival was already under way. Record labels were putting the hits of Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Ricky Nelson, Dion, the Everly Brothers back into circulation. At this key moment Parker decided to sell out the most valuable of them all.

What's more, many of those profits were made in direct competition with Elvis' newer work, in packaging that was very similar to Elvis' current work. Aloha, Fool, A Legendary Performer, Raised on Rock, Good Times all have very similar packaging. Beyond the packaging it was direct flooding the market competition with his current work, limiting his ability to profit on that work. Elvis had been in this position since RCA started flooding the market with budget records at the turn of the decade but at least he made something on those sales.

The problem with the just make more big hits theory is that in 1973, Elvis was 38 years old, a time when the big hit making days of most artists are over or limited because the Top 40 audience is largely young people. I don't mean to say that people like Sinatra, and Elton John or Dean Martin didn't have hits in their 40s and beyond but they didn't build a hit catalog in middle age to rival what they did in their 20s and 30s. Maybe Dino but that's because he didn't move Elton John like numbers in his first run at fame.

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:14 am

likethebike wrote:
elvisonline wrote:I am not sure this is a 'great' topic. It's been discussed a million times before. Of course in HINDSIGHT the deal is appalling. But are fans really short sighted enough to think that the deal was made with Elvis dying in a few years in mind? The way out for Elvis was always to make more great music. Why would both he and the colonel not think that could happen in the future?

Maybe it was a great deal for Elvis as he couldn't take his money with him could he? Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush? Elvis always lived in the moment. Future finance was never a priority. Crikey, he gave most of his money away during life.

elvisonline


The problem is that the deal probably need Elvis' death to make it profitable. It was almost surely profitable before that. The two legendary performer sets had moved between them between one and a half million units before Elvis' death, Pure Gold put up similar numbers, the television compilations Elvis in Hollywood and Elvis had moved in the millions. Elvis-Fool moved about 300,000 according to Ernst notes and The Sun Sessions about the same. That's without a single unit moving overseas and any direct back catalog sales, and by 1973 both the 1971 Christmas LP and the 1957 LP (then available from Camden) had proven themselves big consistent annual movers. What's more, even in a pre-American Graffiti market, Elvis' hits had proven themselves as consistent back sellers. From 1956 to 1977 something like only 15 of his LPs had been deleted and his hits had proven themselves in repackaging time and time again, with the behemoth (for the time) boxed set Elvis' 50 Worldwide Gold Award Hits crashing the pop Top 50 less than three years prior. Further, although Graffiti had not yet been released, the oldies revival was already under way. Record labels were putting the hits of Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Ricky Nelson, Dion, the Everly Brothers back into circulation. At this key moment Parker decided to sell out the most valuable of them all.

What's more, many of those profits were made in direct competition with Elvis' newer work, in packaging that was very similar to Elvis' current work. Aloha, Fool, A Legendary Performer, Raised on Rock, Good Times all have very similar packaging. Beyond the packaging it was direct flooding the market competition with his current work, limiting his ability to profit on that work. Elvis had been in this position since RCA started flooding the market with budget records at the turn of the decade but at least he made something on those sales.

The problem with the just make more big hits theory is that in 1973, Elvis was 38 years old, a time when the big hit making days of most artists are over or limited because the Top 40 audience is largely young people. I don't mean to say that people like Sinatra, and Elton John or Dean Martin didn't have hits in their 40s and beyond but they didn't build a hit catalog in middle age to rival what they did in their 20s and 30s. Maybe Dino but that's because he didn't move Elton John like numbers in his first run at fame.


I think Elvis's situation was more dire than Elton's. Elton had his biggest record in the 1990s. (He's terrific at eulogies, so it makes sense that it would be him.) Elvis was having severe health problems that very year. And it was the '70s, when rock stars were dropping like flies. You cannot deny that. (I want to post Greil Marcus's "Deathsweeps" piece; it's horrifying, but true. I have to scan it in, and will in time for . . . Halloweeen. Elvis did "well"!) And, so I think that certain involved parties really did think it possible, or even probable that the posthumous career was at hand. Which is sick, because he was only 38, but it was the '70s. And so "reasonable," if cold-hearted.

I believe that RCA and Parker not only "colluded" (as ruled by the courts, later), but did so in the knowledge of his health status. I really, really think so, and always have, ever since I found out about it.

That "deal," knowing it was made when it was, can make you lose faith in humanity.

rjm

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:46 pm

Elvis made a smart move accepting the buyout considering he died in 1977. Had he lived it would have been a bad deal. :smt017

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:26 pm

promiseland wrote:Elvis made a smart move accepting the buyout considering he died in 1977. Had he lived it would have been a bad deal. :smt017


Exactly my point. He would no way have earned that much money in future royalties dying only 4 years later. Maybe Elvis knew himself that the end was near.

Elvis never planned for anything. Does anyone think he gave a damn about money? He just spent like it was going out of fashion and gave most of it away. If he wanted more, he just did another tour then another then another. He earnt far more from doing a short tour than he would have from making a few studio singles or albums.

There was no saying that the interest in back hits would grow so incredibly big. CDs hadn't been invented back then. I just think in hindsight it's a dumb deal but at the time it probably seemed a good idea. Hasn't everyone made a crap decision in their time that with hindsight seemed blatantly obvious? I know I have.

Anyway, I'm glad it made him happy. Let's face it, Elvis could do what he bloody well wanted with his money and his catalogue and invariably did.

elvisonline

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:20 am

elvisonline wrote:
promiseland wrote:Elvis made a smart move accepting the buyout considering he died in 1977. Had he lived it would have been a bad deal. :smt017


Exactly my point. He would no way have earned that much money in future royalties dying only 4 years later. Maybe Elvis knew himself that the end was near.

Elvis never planned for anything. Does anyone think he gave a damn about money? He just spent like it was going out of fashion and gave most of it away. If he wanted more, he just did another tour then another then another. He earnt far more from doing a short tour than he would have from making a few studio singles or albums.

There was no saying that the interest in back hits would grow so incredibly big. CDs hadn't been invented back then. I just think in hindsight it's a dumb deal but at the time it probably seemed a good idea. Hasn't everyone made a crap decision in their time that with hindsight seemed blatantly obvious? I know I have.

Anyway, I'm glad it made him happy. Let's face it, Elvis could do what he bloody well wanted with his money and his catalogue and invariably did.

elvisonline


People knew in 1973. As I pointed out, the hits of Elvis and his rivals were all being re-released to the market at that time. By the end of the year, an oldies collection would be in the Top Ten. There is not only reissues sales of course but sales to movies, commercials etc. And it's also important to remember that the reason RCA pitched the deal was because of Parker's complaints about overseas royalties, so there's current money there that RCA did not want to hand over. To measure how much money RCA saw there, even before Elvis' death, and after the buyout where Elvis' royalties were not a concern, RCA priced Elvis' recordings out of contention for use in projects like Happy Days and American Graffiti or the multi-artist compilations that were just starting to dominate afternoon and late night television commercials. By the end of 1974, just in new compilations RCA had moved more than two million units domestically and Elvis was still alive and CDs were a decade off.

I don't know if Elvis knew he was going to die but given the money that he actually realized on the deal, which was only about a third of that total, there were many other options for him to pull in that type of lump sum which was mostly necessary because of Priscilla's new divorce demands. Parker should have known for Elvis and his heirs. Even if Elvis was healthy, there was going to come a time when he would be able to tour less and he has a known asset here, you can't get rid of it. What's more the rush of releases helped limit Elvis' ability to make money on his then current releases. Say what you will about fans choosing Elvis' past over his present, but the rush of releases did mean fans had to make a choice.

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Tue Oct 30, 2012 1:14 am

epf wrote:
Alexander wrote:Well, it is sad to say but Elvis was not the smartest person around and The Cononel... well... robbery was his game I guess.


I strongly disagree. He was too trustful where it concerned the colonel but Elvis showed intelligence on a number of levels.


A lot of smart people are dumb about money and a lot of dumb people are smart about money!

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Tue Oct 30, 2012 1:18 am

Great points -like the bike - I enjoyed reading this post /thread - Ty for sharing this buddy -
::rocks :P
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Wed Oct 31, 2012 3:00 pm

Remember that he still continued to get publisher´s royalties, no matter when the songs were recorded. According to EPE it is still "one of our major assests". Not trying to defend the deal, just pointing out that everything was not sold.

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Wed Oct 31, 2012 6:59 pm

Scarre wrote:Remember that he still continued to get publisher´s royalties, no matter when the songs were recorded. According to EPE it is still "one of our major assests". Not trying to defend the deal, just pointing out that everything was not sold.

Yes, and he still owned Graceland too. Nobody ever said that everything was sold.

Brian

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:12 pm

Elvis didn't know he was going to die within 4 years when he made this deal. :roll:

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:39 pm

brian wrote:Elvis didn't know he was going to die within 4 years when he made this deal. :roll:

But what's that got to do with anything? He would have made more by the end of 1974 if he hadn't made the deal.

Brian