Rank: Member of the Brotherhood
Groups: Registered
Joined: 25/09/2015(UTC)
Posts: 340
Thanks: 152 times
Was thanked: 628 time(s) in 339 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: markreed 
My layman's view is -
Apparently historical revenue, royalties, licensing for merchanise and Joy Division plimsolls, and so forth for JD + NO band activity 1977-2010 averages approx £1m per year. Ifthis is wholly paid to Vitalturn (and I don't see why it wouldn't), each member 'earns' around £250k per annum, less operating costs. GG and PC may be paid less, given that neither was a full member for the entire period, and PC was made a full member circa 2004.
Additionally, if 2011-onwards activity is administered by NON, then how BS, GG, SM, PC & TC divide the money up is up to them. I imagine BS, GG, and SM are majority shareholders (let's say 25% each), and PC, TC are minority shareholders (lets say 10% each) to reflect the late contribution, with 5% to Vitalturn, which in turn is 1.25% to Hook. However New Order are the band that also have to fund all their activities. Road crews, touring, travel, flights, hotels, visas etc are by no mean cheap. So let's say NO operate at a 10% profit (or, around £730,000 profit over the last few years). PH gets 1.25% of the total current New Order revenue, and he isn't paying any operating costs for current New Order activity, which is generating the profit he is taking a slice of. Therefore, by my estimation £250k pa (royalties from Vitalturn historical account) + 1.25% of £7.8m/four years = £2.15m therefore should equal around £24,375 pa, so a gross PH income from 'legacy' activity of around £274k pa.
This is all speculation of course.
Plus the profits he makes from touring The Light. Does he pay New Order 1.25% of The Lights gross revenue to reflect the commercial advantage and value the New Order & JD brand has made to contributing to his current commercial profile? If New Order pay 5% to VT on a legacy basis (of which PH gets 1.25% being one quarter of the band) then surely PH should pay 3.75% of The Light Ltd to New Order to reflect their contribution (being three qarters of the band)? I doubt that happens.
None of this reflects the reputational damage inflicted upon New Order by Hook's very public, and very vitriolic, statements which have damaged the brand.
Personally, and this is just my personal opinion, New Order Now Ltd should pay Vitalturn 10% of profits (not turnover) to reflect the brand status at the time of New Order recommencing activity in 2011. Which would make PH's payments from VT 2.5% of the profts, not 1.25%. The 90% retained by NON reflects the risk taken by New Order and commercial investment made, in order to generate a profit through live performances.
Vitalturn should - and again, I am by no mean a lawyer - be responsible for all band income for activity from 1977-2010, and also reciept of publishing for all songs written by / with Hook, so Hook gets his requisite share of royalties from "Live At The Troxy", "Bestival" etc (for writing only). If band income pa for 1977-2010 comes to £1m then, once administration costs are taken into account, that feels like a division of around 25% each. Well, slightly less, as Stephen Hague, Arthur Baker, John Robie, and Keef Allen may have writing credits on the odd song.
Clear as mud! An out of court settlement beckons.
p.s. you can wake up now. x
A useful summing up, which I think covers most things, but I do wonder about the suggestion that The Light might be expected to have a reciprocal agreement over paying NO Ltd a proportion of their tour receipts. He’s not using the brand New Order any more than the clutch of New Order tribute bands are is he? Maybe if he was going out as “Peter Hook’s New Order” with Peter Hook in little letters and New Order in huge font then it’d be more questionable. And if you try to argue that he’s an ex-New Order member and therefore that makes a difference, then you’d have to admit that Bad Lieutenant were doing the same thing when touring and playing NO songs. Plus I’d also argue that anyone stating this court case and the on-going media bickering since 2011 has “damaged the brand” is clearly ignoring the first rule of publicity (ie all publicity is good publicity). If anything it enhances the media profile of the brand, by keeping it in the limelight and making for a juicy story. How many people have not bought Music Complete or not bought NO gig tickets because they don’t like the situation between Hooky and Barney? I’d say pretty much none (and anyone who genuinely says that they have done exactly that, I’d question their sanity!). If Hooky had left quietly with no qualms, then I’d go so far as to say that the media campaign/reaction on this new NO album would have been pretty dull.
|
 1 user thanked GotBlueEyes for this useful post.
|
|
