A rare Colonel Parker Interview video 1993

according to loanne parker the 50/50 story was wrong, the chicken story was wrong so who knows ?

In the book Day by day written by Ernst Jorgensen and Peter Guralnick there are detailed facts about the dealings between Elvis and Colonel. They had access to EPE files. The deals between Elvis and Colonel had different kinds of structures depending of the income e.g. record royalties, movie salaries, concert performances and merchandising income.

The original contract made in '56 gave Colonel 25% of Elvis income. This changed in January 1967. The new contract still gave Colonel 25 % commission on all of Elvis' movie salaries and contractually guaranteed record company advances but Colonel would receive 50 % of any profits or royalties beyond the basic payments from the film and record contracts as well 50 % of all "special" or side deals. A few weeks later Colonel made a new deal with RCA which dropped the guaranteed annual royalties from 300,000 to 200,000 starting in 1971. It's obvious how this contract benefited Colonel. Also, the Camden record releases were considered side deals and as such Colonel naturally took 50 % of the royalties from them. This is the real reason why Colonel insisted that Burning Love would be released on a Camden record after it became a major hit. Artisticly this was one of the biggest mistakes in Elvis' career.

On top of all this Colonel also made side deals with RCA, film companies, hotels and concert promoters. He received salary as a techinal advisor from the film companies. He got 100,000 dollars a year from RCA for consulting. Hilton paid him another 50,000 dollars. He also got consultation fees from Sahara Tahoe Hotel and concert promoters. Naturally Elvis never saw any of these monies or knew of the deals. Colonel also had unlimited credit at the Las Vegas Hilton. The hotel also provided him with all year around suite plus food suplies for his Palm Springs home plus transportation to and from Las Vegas anytime. All free of charge of course.

In March 1973 Colonel and Elvis made a new seven year deal with RCA. At the same Elvis and Colonel made a new management deal according to which they would divide all record royalties 50/50. The new contract with RCA guaranteed Elvis and Colonel 500,000 dollars a year divided, of course, 50/50. With this contract Elvis sold all his rights to royalties on all recordings made before 1973 for 5,4 million. Colonel also made various special deals at the time with RCA. All together 10,5 million dollars worth of business was made of which Colonel got 6 million and Elvis 4,5 million dollars. Even after Elvis died Colonel still received 950,000 dollars from RCA for consultation, promotion etc.

Originally Elvis and Colonel divided the income from concert performances so that Elvis got 2/3 and Colonel 1/3. This agreement was made in February '72. This changed in January 1976 when they made a new deal which divided income from concerts 50/50. However, apparently Colonel continued to take only 1/3 but the plan was that Elvis was going to settle the difference later.

The merchandising company Boxcar that held all Elvis merchandising rights was owned 85 % by Colonel and his buddies. Elvis received 15 % of it's profits but this was after Colonel and and his buddies had been paid handsome salaries.

source
http://www.elvis.com.au/presley/intervi ... ker2.shtml

Number one, Colonel Parker never took 50% of Elvis earnings, never. It's true, they did sign a contract in the 70s which was a partnership contract where they each were to receive 50%. But Colonel never collected his 50% because it was about that time that Elvis needed extra money for his divorce settlement with Priscilla.

source
http://www.elvis.com.au/presley/intervi ... ker2.shtml

Number one, Colonel Parker never took 50% of Elvis earnings, never. It's true, they did sign a contract in the 70s which was a partnership contract where they each were to receive 50%. But Colonel never collected his 50% because it was about that time that Elvis needed extra money for his divorce settlement with Priscilla.

That interview tells me everything about his widow.

Obviously married Parker for his money.

Im sure she would have fell in love with him if he was just a normal guy.

She paints a lovely little picture of Parker.

What aload of bull.

To hear Geller tell this story in his unique way, is chilling and very believable.

He might be one of the nice guys, but he's truly a muddlehead who's telling this story since the year one until now. He doesn't have to tell that much.

It would be a lot more interesting to talk to Red West. Were there any interviews with him after August 1977 - printed or filmed?

Joern

To hear Geller tell this story in his unique way, is chilling and very believable.

He might be one of the nice guys, but he's truly a muddlehead who's telling this story since the year one until now. He doesn't have to tell that much.

It would be a lot more interesting to talk to Red West. Were there any interviews with him after August 1977 - printed or filmed?

Joern

In 1996 he and five other members of Memphis Mafia did a six part video documentry called All The Kings Men. It's basically them remiscing about their life with Elvis. Lots of interesting stuff there. Unfortunately it's only available on VHS.

source
http://www.elvis.com.au/presley/intervi ... ker2.shtml

Number one, Colonel Parker never took 50% of Elvis earnings, never. It's true, they did sign a contract in the 70s which was a partnership contract where they each were to receive 50%. But Colonel never collected his 50% because it was about that time that Elvis needed extra money for his divorce settlement with Priscilla.

Of course she defends her husband. She's clearly not telling the truth. In fact Colonel got even more than 50 % because he made side deals behind Elvis' back. The facts of the '73 deal with RCA cannot be denied: Colonel got more than Elvis on that deal.

Last edited by Marko on Fri Oct 06, 2006 6:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Originally Elvis and Colonel divided the income from concert performances so that Elvis got 2/3 and Colonel 1/3. This agreement was made in February '72. This changed in January 1976 when they made a new deal which divided income from concerts 50/50. However, apparently Colonel continued to take only 1/3 but the plan was that Elvis was going to settle the difference later.

Spot on Marko..
Elvis couldn't settle anything anymore in the end, so he couldn't get rid of Parker! It would have cost him a fortune (he didn't have)

Smart move from the Colonel, Elvis was finished.
I still wonder how he could have approved all these deals..

-The Colonel knew "things"..
-Parker was able to hypnotise..
-Parker had Vernon under control ("without me, no income")

It makes me sick. Damn, the Colonel should have stayed in Breda his entire life!

Again, the Larry Geller book provides valuable information on the Colonel and Elvis really wanted to get rid of him.

Cheers, RJ

Is anyone really suprised? A manager is a salesman. A good salesman is a bulldog who goes after the money and finds his client work. But salesmen are not known for ethical piety. The colonel did some questionable things and may have been a conniving pig, but Elvis was an adult and could have sh*tcanned Parker if he wanted.

Is anyone really suprised? A manager is a salesman. A good salesman is a bulldog who goes after the money and finds his client work. But salesmen are not known for ethical piety. The colonel did some questionable things and may have been a conniving pig, but Elvis was an adult and could have sh*tcanned Parker if he wanted.

It appears that some people are actually surprised about this. I'm not. Elvis isn't the only artist who got ripped off by their manager. Remember The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen, George Michael and Billy Joel for starters.

Surprised? Not anymore. But outraged? Sure. Plenty of legendary acts who were hardly Ph. D's just didn't have the misfortunate having a manipulative cad like the so-called "Colonel" as his crooked manager.

It seems Elvis' management stands out to most observers as exhibit "A" in bad management, save for some of the carny-like hype that often worked for the man.

There was that weird, father-son-like bond (spell?) between Elvis and Andreas Cornelius van Kuijk. To my mind, it was ultimately Elvis' fault this all came to pass but he was also victimized by "Parker" in a sense.

Thanks for posting this, Pep. ( What a site that Youtube.com is...!)

Thenexte, I couldn't get the volume up that high and I was listening for his Dutch accent but frankly it seemed rather faint, if audible at all. It seemed masked under his southern accent, but it seems like it's there and could come out. Do you think it's obvious? I think it's too faint for most English speakers or at least Americans to notice....

Hello,

Does anyone know where i can watch this interview? The video has been removed from youtube ...

This video has been removed due to terms of use violation.

yes, it´s gone. haven´t seen it myself.

I tried too late- it has been removed from Youtube.

Is anyone really suprised? A manager is a salesman. A good salesman is a bulldog who goes after the money and finds his client work. But salesmen are not known for ethical piety. The colonel did some questionable things and may have been a conniving pig, but Elvis was an adult and could have sh*tcanned Parker if he wanted.

Sometimes it takes years before somebody realizes they've been cheated. Since we all agree that the abuse started in the seventies, had Elvis lived, there's a chance that he would have eventually found out. The answer I think lies with Joe Esposito, who was more like a double-agent.