Johnny Marr's statement about the Smiths rumour

nothappynotsad · Apr 30, 2012

Anonymous said:
Whatever Morrissey's loved ones were "put through" was a consequence of Morrissey trying to rip people off. Morrissey chose not to fulfill his legal obligations to Mike Joyce and thereby created problems for his family. If he still can't recognise that fact, then that's his problem.

Agreed. I don't know why people have a hard time understanding these things. Morrissey is not above the law. The law said that he and Marr owed Joyce money. Marr was smart and paid it. Morrissey wasn't smart and allowed him to collect his Smiths royalties which has surely earned Joyce more money in the last 16 years than what was initially owed to him. Morrissey is lucky that he hasn't been thrown in jail for contempt of court. How many other people can continuously ignore the court's ruling for 16 years without repercussions?

Iona Mink · Apr 30, 2012

nothappynotsad said:
Agreed. I don't know why people have a hard time understanding these things. Morrissey is not above the law. The law said that he and Marr owed Joyce money. Marr was smart and paid it. Morrissey wasn't smart and allowed him to collect his Smiths royalties which has surely earned Joyce more money in the last 16 years than what was initially owed to him. Morrissey is lucky that he hasn't been thrown in jail for contempt of court. How many other people can continuously ignore the court's ruling for 16 years without repercussions?

I think I read a few years back a Morrissey statement on TTY saying he has now paid the amount deemed appropriate by the court.

King Leer · May 1, 2012

I tried to come up with a response to your idea that Morrissey "ripped off" Joyce but I couldn't -- it's too ridiculous.

It's good that you think people in positions of power such as judges are always infallible in their decisions. I'm heartened to know that David Cameron is not an aberration among Smiths & Morrissey fans...

Anonymous said:
Whatever Morrissey's loved ones were "put through" was a consequence of Morrissey trying to rip people off. Morrissey chose not to fulfill his legal obligations to Mike Joyce and thereby created problems for his family. If he still can't recognise that fact, then that's his problem.

Anonymous · May 1, 2012

King Leer said:
I do actually believe Morrissey & Marr will collaborate again in the future, though maybe not as showily as some believe (e.g. Johnny making a surprise appearance on stage). I'd prefer it low key. A single new song to mark the 30th anniversary of the genesis of The Smiths would be fantastic. It all started with the two of them anyway.

The Joyce thing... I ask any of you -- if your own mother or another loved one was put through the turmoil that Morrissey's apparently was through Joyce's legal maneuvers, would you ever consider sharing a studio or stage with them again? Even more so considering how close Morrissey and his mum are.

If the reunion did happen with Joyce, I'd be seriously worried about Morrissey's mental faculties (some are worried now -- I'm not one of them).

Dear King Leer,
You know I'm always right, and this time you are also.
Morrissey and Joyce? NEVER.

we'll let you know
(P.S. It nice to hear 'We'll let you know' on new single. Coincidence?)

Anonymous · May 1, 2012

King Leer said:
I tried to come up with a response to your idea that Morrissey "ripped off" Joyce but I couldn't -- it's too ridiculous.

It's good that you think people in positions of power such as judges are always infallible in their decisions. I'm heartened to know that David Cameron is not an aberration among Smiths & Morrissey fans...

Strawman.

You don't have to believe that, "people in positions of power such as judges are always infallible in their decisions," in order to accept that the judges' rulings in Joyce's favour are correct. You seem to believe that the judge who decided the case in the first instance erred in law. You fail to explain, though, what his supposed error was. Enlighten me; I'm all agog in anticipation. A tribunal of High Court judges re-examined the original decision, upon Morrissey's application, and could find no misunderstanding or misapplication of the relevant legislation and no breach of natural justice. Maybe, though, with your list of qualifications in English company law and your impartial disposition, you can do better than they. As a starting point, check out s.24(1) of the Partnership Act 1890 which provides that, subject to any additional agreement between the members of a partnership (e.g. The Smiths), they each "are entitled to share equally in the capital and profits of the business".

In the meantime, I'm wondering: how many f***ing times does the court case need to be explained on this site?

nothappynotsad · May 1, 2012

Anonymous said:
Strawman.

You don't have to believe that, "people in positions of power such as judges are always infallible in their decisions," in order to accept that the judges' rulings in Joyce's favour are correct. You seem to believe that the judge who decided the case in the first instance erred in law. You fail to explain, though, what his supposed error was. Enlighten me; I'm all agog in anticipation. A tribunal of High Court judges re-examined the original decision, upon Morrissey's application, and could find no misunderstanding or misapplication of the relevant legislation and no breach of natural justice. Maybe, though, with your list of qualifications in English company law and your impartial disposition, you can do better than they. As a starting point, check out s.24(1) of the Partnership Act 1890 which provides that, subject to any additional agreement between the members of a partnership (e.g. The Smiths), they each "are entitled to share equally in the capital and profits of the business".

In the meantime, I'm wondering: how many f***ing times does the court case need to be explained on this site?

Skylarker · May 1, 2012

Anonymous said:
In the meantime, I'm wondering: how many f***ing times does the court case need to be explained on this site?

Until it is explained in such a way that there is no room for any interpretation other than that which supports the general consensus here which says that Morrissey can do no wrong, but can only be wronged by others, that Mike Joyce is somehow simultaneously a pig and a crook yet also witty enough to fool the legal system, that Morrissey is above the law, above man, above God, and does not have to subject himself to silly little annoyances like court orders.

MORRIZSEY · May 1, 2012

nothappynotsad said:
Agreed. I don't know why people have a hard time understanding these things. Morrissey is not above the law. The law said that he and Marr owed Joyce money. Marr was smart and paid it. Morrissey wasn't smart and allowed him to collect his Smiths royalties which has surely earned Joyce more money in the last 16 years than what was initially owed to him. Morrissey is lucky that he hasn't been thrown in jail for contempt of court. How many other people can continuously ignore the court's ruling for 16 years without repercussions?

I agree, but not in any cynical way. Marr wasn't just smart, he did the decent thing and paid his dues, and I've always respected him for that. It should never have gone to court originally because the performance rights were to be split between the performers, of which there were four. Creative rights were separate.

Maurice E · May 1, 2012

I think we're missing some of the fundamental issues here about the running of the Smiths. Tons and tons of work went into the Smiths that was effectively unpaid, and most of that work was carried out by Morrissey and/or Marr. This included designing record sleeves, planning tours, TV interviews, magazine and newspaper interviews, numerous other promotional events, managerial duties (Marr), producing the records, arranging the songs.
Rourke and Joyce had virtually zero input into these activities - they were mainly just musicians who came along and played their instruments (at the studio or on tour).
Morrissey and Marr received no payment at all for most of these activities. For Morrissey and Marr, the Smiths was a full-time occupation, and they simply did huge amounts more work than Joyce and Michael to keep the band up and running, and in the public eye. Therefore, they arguably deserved a much greater share than 25% each (and this is before you take into account songwriting royalties over which I think there is little disagreement).

MORRIZSEY · May 1, 2012

Maurice E said:
I think we're missing some of the fundamental issues here about the running of the Smiths. Tons and tons of work went into the Smiths that was effectively unpaid, and most of that work was carried out by Morrissey and/or Marr. This included designing record sleeves, planning tours, TV interviews, magazine and newspaper interviews, numerous other promotional events, managerial duties (Marr), producing the records, arranging the songs.
Rourke and Joyce had virtually zero input into these activities - they were mainly just musicians who came along and played their instruments (at the studio or on tour).
Morrissey and Marr received no payment at all for most of these activities. For Morrissey and Marr, the Smiths was a full-time occupation, and they simply did huge amounts more work than Joyce and Michael to keep the band up and running, and in the public eye. Therefore, they arguably deserved a much greater share than 25% each (and this is before you take into account songwriting royalties over which I think there is little disagreement).

Yes, of creative rights, but not performance rights, which was the crux of the issue

Anonymous · May 1, 2012

Maurice E said:
I think we're missing some of the fundamental issues here about the running of the Smiths. Tons and tons of work went into the Smiths that was effectively unpaid, and most of that work was carried out by Morrissey and/or Marr. This included designing record sleeves, planning tours, TV interviews, magazine and newspaper interviews, numerous other promotional events, managerial duties (Marr), producing the records, arranging the songs.
Rourke and Joyce had virtually zero input into these activities - they were mainly just musicians who came along and played their instruments (at the studio or on tour).
Morrissey and Marr received no payment at all for most of these activities. For Morrissey and Marr, the Smiths was a full-time occupation, and they simply did huge amounts more work than Joyce and Michael to keep the band up and running, and in the public eye. Therefore, they arguably deserved a much greater share than 25% each (and this is before you take into account songwriting royalties over which I think there is little disagreement).

Nobody is missing what you call "the fundamental issues". I don't think anybody is disputing that Morrissey & Marr made a bigger contribution to the running of the band's affairs than Rourke or Joyce. That issue, however, is completely irrelevant. In law, division of profit and capital among partners must be equal, save for instances where an operative contract, departing from the statutory position, has been agreed by all parties. (Maybe if Morrissey had been able to hold on to a competent manager for longer that ten minutes, s/he might've explained that elementary point to him.) The idea that Morrissey should've got more because of his sleeve designs and interviews is a complete and utter red herring. Without a contract stipulating that Morrissey & Marr would receive more than 25% of the profits, they were not entitled to deny Joyce (or Rourke, for that matter) an equal share.

King Leer · May 2, 2012

Not erred in law, erred in judgement. i.e. Bad at his job.

The error in judgement is that Rourke and Joyce should be entitled to equal royalties for live performances when they never were for songwriting and publishing royalties. The written agreement on the songwriting and publishing royalty split should have been judged to inform the unwritten split on live performances within the partnership, but Joyce lucked out with a judge that hadn't a clue (and wasn't willing to consider) the burden of creativity, PR or management within a band and who famously didn't take a liking to Morrissey. When you say Morrissey tried to "rip off" Joyce it's ridiculous because the cash amount itself pales in comparison to publishing royalties -- it wasn't about that. Rourke, by his actions, soon conceded he didn't deserve 25% and took what he could get and later tried to sell his 10% "stream" on eBay.

And as if one high court judge would ever question another's findings -- especially in a case like this where they'd suffer no public scrutiny. Are you high?

Anonymous said:
Strawman.

You don't have to believe that, "people in positions of power such as judges are always infallible in their decisions," in order to accept that the judges' rulings in Joyce's favour are correct. You seem to believe that the judge who decided the case in the first instance erred in law. You fail to explain, though, what his supposed error was. Enlighten me; I'm all agog in anticipation. A tribunal of High Court judges re-examined the original decision, upon Morrissey's application, and could find no misunderstanding or misapplication of the relevant legislation and no breach of natural justice. Maybe, though, with your list of qualifications in English company law and your impartial disposition, you can do better than they. As a starting point, check out s.24(1) of the Partnership Act 1890 which provides that, subject to any additional agreement between the members of a partnership (e.g. The Smiths), they each "are entitled to share equally in the capital and profits of the business".

In the meantime, I'm wondering: how many f***ing times does the court case need to be explained on this site?

joe frady · May 2, 2012

Anonymous said:
Strawman.

You don't have to believe that, "people in positions of power such as judges are always infallible in their decisions," in order to accept that the judges' rulings in Joyce's favour are correct. You seem to believe that the judge who decided the case in the first instance erred in law. You fail to explain, though, what his supposed error was. Enlighten me; I'm all agog in anticipation. A tribunal of High Court judges re-examined the original decision, upon Morrissey's application, and could find no misunderstanding or misapplication of the relevant legislation and no breach of natural justice. Maybe, though, with your list of qualifications in English company law and your impartial disposition, you can do better than they. As a starting point, check out s.24(1) of the Partnership Act 1890 which provides that, subject to any additional agreement between the members of a partnership (e.g. The Smiths), they each "are entitled to share equally in the capital and profits of the business".

In the meantime, I'm wondering: how many f***ing times does the court case need to be explained on this site?

Anonymous said:
Nobody is missing what you call "the fundamental issues". I don't think anybody is disputing that Morrissey & Marr made a bigger contribution to the running of the band's affairs than Rourke or Joyce. That issue, however, is completely irrelevant. In law, division of profit and capital among partners must be equal, save for instances where an operative contract, departing from the statutory position, has been agreed by all parties. (Maybe if Morrissey had been able to hold on to a competent manager for longer that ten minutes, s/he might've explained that elementary point to him.) The idea that Morrissey should've got more because of his sleeve designs and interviews is a complete and utter red herring. Without a contract stipulating that Morrissey & Marr would receive more than 25% of the profits, they were not entitled to deny Joyce (or Rourke, for that matter) an equal share.

We're being charged for this, right?
Or is this pro-bono?

Anonymous · May 2, 2012

King Leer said:
Not erred in law, erred in judgement. i.e. Bad at his job.

The error in judgement is that Rourke and Joyce should be entitled to equal royalties for live performances when they never were for songwriting and publishing royalties. The written agreement on the songwriting and publishing royalty split should have been judged to inform the unwritten split on live performances within the partnership, but Joyce lucked out with a judge that hadn't a clue (and wasn't willing to consider) the burden of creativity, PR or management within a band and who famously didn't take a liking to Morrissey. When you say Morrissey tried to "rip off" Joyce it's ridiculous because the cash amount itself pales in comparison to publishing royalties -- it wasn't about that. Rourke, by his actions, soon conceded he didn't deserve 25% and took what he could get and later tried to sell his 10% "stream" on eBay.

And as if one high court judge would ever question another's findings -- especially in a case like this where they'd suffer no public scrutiny. Are you high?

One judge wouldn't question another's findings? Right. Can you tell me, then, what do you think is the purpose of the appellate courts? Is it, perhaps, just an elaborate conspiracy to give the ignorant plebs the impression that justice is possible? Incidentally, in 2010, the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) disposed of 1212 cases. It allowed more cases (529) than it disallowed (434). (http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/statistics/courts-and-sentencing/judicial-court-stats.pdf) Happy to help.

On the question of whether the judge was "bad at his job", what qualifies you to make that assessment? Your superficial knowledge of a decision in one case that your favourite pop star lost? Not exactly a thoroughgoing analysis of the man's professional competence, is it? The judges applied the law to the facts of the case. That is their job. Now, I've already explained what the law is; would it help you understand if I were to explain it again? Your arguments about the "burden" of management and PR and creativity are all very interesting, inventive and novel, but they aren't worth shit - that is, unless you can cite any appropriate precedents from case law as authority for them. Can you? I wait to be impressed.

mcrickson · May 2, 2012

Anonymous said:
One judge wouldn't question another's findings? Right. Can you tell me, then, what do you think is the purpose of the appellate courts? Is it, perhaps, just an elaborate conspiracy to give the ignorant plebs the impression that justice is possible? Incidentally, in 2010, the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) disposed of 1212 cases. It allowed more cases (529) than it disallowed (434). (http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/statistics/courts-and-sentencing/judicial-court-stats.pdf) Happy to help.

On the question of whether the judge was "bad at his job", what qualifies you to make that assessment? Your superficial knowledge of a decision in one case that your favourite pop star lost? Not exactly a thoroughgoing analysis of the man's professional competence, is it? The judges applied the law to the facts of the case. That is their job. Now, I've already explained what the law is; would it help you understand if I were to explain it again? Your arguments about the "burden" of management and PR and creativity are all very interesting, inventive and novel, but they aren't worth shit - that is, unless you can cite any appropriate precedents from case law as authority for them. Can you? I wait to be impressed.

Are you Mike Joyce?

Worm · May 2, 2012

mcrickson said:
Are you Mike Joyce?

If Mike Joyce had been as clear and tough in his thinking, he'd have had Morrissey and Marr in court in 1985, 1986 at the latest.

joe frady · May 3, 2012

Anonymous said:
One judge wouldn't question another's findings? Right. Can you tell me, then, what do you think is the purpose of the appellate courts? Is it, perhaps, just an elaborate conspiracy to give the ignorant plebs the impression that justice is possible? Incidentally, in 2010, the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) disposed of 1212 cases. It allowed more cases (529) than it disallowed (434). (http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/statistics/courts-and-sentencing/judicial-court-stats.pdf) Happy to help.

On the question of whether the judge was "bad at his job", what qualifies you to make that assessment? Your superficial knowledge of a decision in one case that your favourite pop star lost? Not exactly a thoroughgoing analysis of the man's professional competence, is it? The judges applied the law to the facts of the case. That is their job. Now, I've already explained what the law is; would it help you understand if I were to explain it again? Your arguments about the "burden" of management and PR and creativity are all very interesting, inventive and novel, but they aren't worth shit - that is, unless you can cite any appropriate precedents from case law as authority for them. Can you? I wait to be impressed.

Lend us tenner eh Michael?

I've some Morrissey tickets to pay for.

Johnny Marr's statement about the Smiths rumour

nothappynotsad

Snapping necks and cashing checks

Iona Mink

Despitemybetterjudgement

King Leer

Leering since '97

Anonymous

Guest

Anonymous

Guest

nothappynotsad

Snapping necks and cashing checks

Skylarker

Guest

MORRIZSEY

Wrong species

Maurice E

Junior Member

MORRIZSEY

Wrong species

Anonymous

Guest

King Leer

Leering since '97

joe frady

Vile Refusenik

Anonymous

Guest

mcrickson

Reckless Endangerment

Worm

Taste the diffidence

joe frady

Vile Refusenik

Similar threads

Trending Threads