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

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:50 pm

bpmod wrote:
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.


read through the entire thread.

A couple of posters were speculating that Elvis might of known that he'd die soon so that's why he made the deal.

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:59 pm

brian wrote:
bpmod wrote:
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.


read through the entire thread.

A couple of posters were speculating that Elvis might of known that he'd die soon so that's why he made the deal.

Sorry. I completely missed your 'rolling eyes' emoticon.

Carry on.

Brian

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:05 pm

brian wrote:
bpmod wrote:
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.


read through the entire thread.

A couple of posters were speculating that Elvis might of known that he'd die soon so that's why he made the deal.


Elvis would not have known he was going to die within four years (although he'd been sailing close to the wind a few times I'm sure) but he would have known he needed the cash. Not in future, he needed it when he made the deal. I'm sure the colonel did too to pay off his gambling debts.

elvisonline

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:42 pm

elvisonline wrote:Elvis would not have known he was going to die within four years (although he'd been sailing close to the wind a few times I'm sure) but he would have known he needed the cash. Not in future, he needed it when he made the deal. I'm sure the colonel did too to pay off his gambling debts.

elvisonline

But, as has been said numerous times, he didn't need to give away the cow when he had all that milk. There were plenty of other options for some quick cash.

Brian

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:49 pm

While the deal was not a good one there's a point of clarification that needs to be mentioned. The rights sold to RCA in the deal were Elvis' royalties as a recording artist. He retained his publishing rights on all recorded material published through one of his song publishing companys. In the music business, publishing and live performance is where the big money is at.

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Wed Oct 31, 2012 11:10 pm

Pete Dube wrote:While the deal was not a good one there's a point of clarification that needs to be mentioned. The rights sold to RCA in the deal were Elvis' royalties as a recording artist. He retained his publishing rights on all recorded material published through one of his song publishing companys. In the music business, publishing and live performance is where the big money is at.

1. That point has already been mentioned.

2. Even if "publishing and live performance is where the big money is at", that's a lot of small money he gave away.

Either way, it was a very very bad move by the colonel, and that it was mismanagement goes without saying.

Brian

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Wed Oct 31, 2012 11:27 pm

bpmod wrote:
Pete Dube wrote:While the deal was not a good one there's a point of clarification that needs to be mentioned. The rights sold to RCA in the deal were Elvis' royalties as a recording artist. He retained his publishing rights on all recorded material published through one of his song publishing companys. In the music business, publishing and live performance is where the big money is at.

1. That point has already been mentioned.

2. Even if "publishing and live performance is where the big money is at", that's a lot of small money he gave away.

Either way, it was a very very bad move by the colonel, and that it was mismanagement goes without saying.

Brian


I guess bottom line here is that Elvis had all the talent yet others ended up with all the money. Just think as an industry, how much Elvis lined the pockets of others throughout the years and even now. On the back of everything he achieved in life, even in death he earns others millions of pounds.

It's not all about money though is it? Who has the legacy? Who will be remembered in generations to come?

I don't think anyone will be saying the phrase RCA Victor or BMG or Sony BMG in 100 years but I bet Elvis will still be a household name! That's the legacy he created and that has nothing to do with money, good deal/bad deal whatever!

elvisonline

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:36 am

bpmod wrote:
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



Everyone else, except you, understood that I was talking about the 1973 deal...

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:17 am

brian wrote:
bpmod wrote:
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.


read through the entire thread.

A couple of posters were speculating that Elvis might of known that he'd die soon so that's why he made the deal.


That, of course, is rubbish to think. The fact that Elvis made the deal showed his carelessness about his financial situation and the greed and disrespect from Colonel Parker for the interests of his client. It was a very, very BAD deal.

Re: Seven Reasons the '73 Buyout was mismanagement

Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:17 pm

Scarre wrote:
bpmod wrote:
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



Everyone else, except you, understood that I was talking about the 1973 deal...

What the hell do you think I thought you were talking about? My goodness, there are some obtuse people on this board.

Brian