POSTING GUIDELINES
This forum is intended to provide an atmosphere of open communication, where each member can share his or her own insights and opinions. To help achieve this goal, we ask that you:
Do not post libelous or illegal material.
Do not post harassing or discriminatory comments based on race, ethnic origin, gender, or sexual orientation.
Do not solicit or advertise.
If you have questions or comments about this forum (such as technical difficulties or performance issues), please contact your forum administrator for the appropriate channel for your inquiry.
Moderation
Any post that violates the above conditions, or departs from the intended purpose of this forum may be removed without notice by the administration.
We reserve the right to edit any post for reasons including, but not limited to: language, length, or content not appropriate to the topic of this forum.
Older threads or messages may be removed from time to time, to main to maintain categories or threads of manageable length.
Any member who breaches these Guidelines through hostile, abusive or other inappropriate behavior may find their account privileges revoked.
Privacy
Remember that this is a public forum, and you have no guarantee or expectation of privacy. Your post could be read by anyone.
Posts can be traced. We record information about every user of this forum, and will honor any court orders or requests by recognized law authorities for information about individuals posting libelous material.
All communications on this board are deemed to by public and not private communications. We reserve the right to remove without notice any message posted for any reason, but we have no obligation to remove content you find objectionable.
Regarding your email address and other personal information
Although we require your email address for verification purposes, we recommend that you do not post it or any other personal information such, as phone numbers or your home address. Your posts can be searched by bots or third parties that have no affiliation with the administrator of this forum.
Disclaimer
The views expressed by members of this forum are their own and do not reflect the position of the administrator or other members. Each member is responsible for the content of his/her own posts.
Please report any activity that you notice which is libelous, inflammatory, or in violation of common decency to the management immediately.
I must admit I don't know why Fingers is pursuing this. All well and good to put something in the small claims court, but putting your house on the line is a bit much. I guess there is a few quid involved, especially if you consider back payments, but this seems pretty risky. I had a case against a surveyor a few years ago, but I didn't pursue it because the projected costs outweighed the sum in dispute; despite being assured I was likely to be successful it simply wouldn't have been worth it in time and effort. With costs of £1m or so, there need to be big gains to be made to make it worthwhile. The lawyers must be rubbing their hands in glee at the easy money on offer here.
Still long time until March 2018, so possible it all gets settled behind closed doors; that would make it 13 years since this all started.
PS £4,500/annum in royalties doesn't seem like much - I guess it is all for She's So Modern.
Let's hope it all gets sorted before the release of the new album. Perish the thought that all of the additional press prattle will circulate at the same time. Nobody would want that.
I'm surprised it's resurfaced (pardon the pun).Didn't expect to hear about this again. I always thought Fingers was the most 'easy going' of the Rats, if one can ever judge from the outside. He certainly needs the money more than Geldof.
Whatever about who wrote it I wonder too if actually playing on the record counts for anything?It's Fingers piano work, not Geldof on the old joanna so surely this is a factor in any royalty dispute. The piano playing/sound makes the song in many ways.Then there are minor contributions from the rest of the band so maybe all royalties were shared out equally, or does Geldof as alleged songwriter get the lions share?
Listening again to the rough San Diego version within a month of the tragedy, it is clear the line 'Down, down, down...shoot it all down' has yet to evolve with Geldof clearly stuck for the right words to go in there. So maybe this did come later from Fingers?
Let's hope it all gets sorted before the release of the new album. Perish the thought that all of the additional press prattle will circulate at the same time. Nobody would want that.
Would they?
It would be terrible if they printed lots of stories about the Rats just as they released an album...
... no such thing as bad publicity.
Plenty of scope for Geldof to insult all and sundry during the summer and get their names in the papers.
...I wonder too if actually playing on the record counts for anything?It's Fingers piano work, not Geldof on the old joanna so surely this is a factor in any royalty dispute. The piano playing/sound makes the song in many ways.Then there are minor contributions from the rest of the band so maybe all royalties were shared out equally, or does Geldof as alleged songwriter get the lions share?
I think the other thread on the matter covers this. The lyrics and the melody tune are what counts, the rest is incidental. There is a performance fee but small potatoes compared with the songwriting credit. Andy Scott of Sweet made more on royalties for Love is like Oxygen than any of the big Chinn/Chapman hits he performed on.
I don't know what the annual Rats royalties are, but I would guesstimate around £100k/annum. Even with Mondays forming a good proportion of that, I suspect the best for a co-credit would be around £20K/annum. Backdated, probably worth a cool million quid, but that would be pre-tax, so betting the house on it seems rash.
Geldof got the lion's share and it's probably a nice fall back, but he probably earns more getting thrown off stage doing an after dinner speech than he does in a year of royalties.
It will be 13 years since it all started come March 2018 and whilst the others have settled, Fingers is still trying to get what he perceives as his due. I suspect there will be an out of court agreement, but the real winners here are the lawyers.
Let's hope it all gets sorted before the release of the new album. Perish the thought that all of the additional press prattle will circulate at the same time. Nobody would want that.
Would they?
It would be terrible if they printed lots of stories about the Rats just as they released an album...
... no such thing as bad publicity.
Plenty of scope for Geldof to insult all and sundry during the summer and get their names in the papers.
Let's hope it all gets sorted before the release of the new album. Perish the thought that all of the additional press prattle will circulate at the same time. Nobody would want that.
Would they?
It would be terrible if they printed lots of stories about the Rats just as they released an album...
... no such thing as bad publicity.
Plenty of scope for Geldof to insult all and sundry during the summer and get their names in the papers.
It would be really dreadful.
Glad someone got my drift!
As long as he continues to say stupid things like When she [May] pimps the Queen [to Trump], she pimps the nation then there will be a few more headlines. There must be journalists who just follow him around the after dinner circuit recording these. Easy news. And easy money for these speaking engagements.
Let's hope it all gets sorted before the release of the new album. Perish the thought that all of the additional press prattle will circulate at the same time. Nobody would want that.
Would they?
It would be terrible if they printed lots of stories about the Rats just as they released an album...
... no such thing as bad publicity.
Plenty of scope for Geldof to insult all and sundry during the summer and get their names in the papers.
It would be really dreadful.
Glad someone got my drift!
Lucy Bannerman of The Times no less, not some gutter publication starts her take on the story with the following :
'Some might say that its not just his greatest hit but his only one. Now Bob Geldof and a former bandmate with the Boomtown Rats are taking their battle over royalties from the song I Dont Like Mondays to the High Court'.
Not sure why a Times writer would use that as an opening line.Taking a well known hit by a band and then half implying that it was their only hit.Why she wishes to speak on behalf of 'some' is curious, is it her own ignorance or malice? I suspect she means that it's the song most people associate with Geldof/the Rats and none of the others matter. It's just a weird way to introduce an article on a band that had a whole string of Top 40 hits .
This is an example of 'publicity' from a newspaper which should know better. Full article below:
Lucy Bannerman of The Times no less, not some gutter publication starts her take on the story with the following :
'Some might say that its not just his greatest hit but his only one. Now Bob Geldof and a former bandmate with the Boomtown Rats are taking their battle over royalties from the song I Dont Like Mondays to the High Court'.
Not sure why a Times writer would use that as an opening line.Taking a well known hit by a band and then half implying that it was their only hit.Why she wishes to speak on behalf of 'some' is curious, is it her own ignorance or malice? I suspect she means that it's the song most people associate with Geldof/the Rats and none of the others matter. It's just a weird way to introduce an article on a band that had a whole string of Top 40 hits .
They are the only one hit wonders with two #1s though Dexys are similar with Come On Eileen (some might forget Geno being #1). More #1s than The Clash, The Stranglers, Sex Pistols et al combined. More than Madness. More than Mariah Carey. More than Fleetwood Mac. More than Kings of Leon. More than Simon and Garfunkel. More than The Who. More than Prince. More then Led Zeppelin. More then Pink Floyd. More than Pulp. As many as Arctic Monkeys. As many as Blur. As many as Coldplay.
But 11 less than Westlife. Maybe that's what they are being compared with. The journalist is probably too young to remember. and too lazy to research it.
PS Chuck in the Christmas song as well if referring to "his" hits. That makes it 3 #1s
...she might find herself superfluous to the Times' requirements.
The Times will soon find itself superfluous to their readers like much of the press. Would be interesting to know how many newspapers are actually paid for these days. I get two free in the morning, an occasional freebie from Waitrose at lunchtime and a freebie in the evening. In the last seven years circulation of the "paid for" papers has dropped from over 10 million to around 6.5 million. And given a substantial amount of that 6.5 million are given away (via Waitrose or in hotels), it is a wonder there are still nine UK newspapers left. I suspect two or three will be gone within a couple of years. Guardian looks like it is on its last legs with the begging on the website.
