PDA

View Full Version : The infamous 1973 deal



Unchained Melody
09-29-2008, 11:53 PM
Can someone give details about Elvis selling his contract or whatever it was back to RCA getting 8 million dollars and he didn';t have to do nothing. Did he do this because of the divorce settlement coming up and he needed money fast, I know Elvis was no fool, but I just don't think that was a good deal and elvis just saw it as a way to make alot of money for doing nothing really. I just dont see how you can put a price tag on songs like his hits.

Brian
09-30-2008, 09:25 AM
Can someone give details about Elvis selling his contract or whatever it was back to RCA getting 8 million dollars and he didn';t have to do nothing. Did he do this because of the divorce settlement coming up and he needed money fast, I know Elvis was no fool, but I just don't think that was a good deal and elvis just saw it as a way to make alot of money for doing nothing really. I just dont see how you can put a price tag on songs like his hits.

Hi Bradley
How is school going by the way?

Elvis needed money for his divorce as Priscilla agreed on an original settlement
then backed out of that and wanted more money, because Elvis spent money like no tommorow he didn't have it and RCA kept making offers to him to buy his back catalouge of songs. Elvis told the Colonel to make the deal as he thought older recordings didn't sell anymore, The Colonel told him it wasn't a good deal but Elvis told him to make the deal regardless. The Colonel arranged to sell the recordings for 11 millions which The Colonel and Elvis split.
Of course it turned out when Priscilla wanted some more money in the divorce and Elvis sold his back catalouge of songs she and Lisa lost millions of dollars in future income because of it.

hope this helps

KPM
09-30-2008, 09:54 AM
Hi Bradley
How is school going by the way?

Elvis needed money for his divorce as Priscilla agreed on an original settlement
then backed out of that and wanted more money, because Elvis spent money like no tommorow he didn't have it and RCA kept making offers to him to buy his back catalouge of songs. Elvis told the Colonel to make the deal as he thought older recordings didn't sell anymore, The Colonel told him it wasn't a good deal but Elvis told him to make the deal regardless. The Colonel arranged to sell the recordings for 11 millions which The Colonel and Elvis split.
Of course it turned out when Priscilla wanted some more money in the divorce and Elvis sold his back catalouge of songs she and Lisa lost millions of dollars in future income because of it.

That is something I have never heard before-where you get that info?

In the "Elvis Day by Day" by Guralnick and Jorgensen it is stated that the back catalogue was purchased with a single one time payment of $5.4 million.
The other money was for other things.
In all something like 10.5 million worth of business is done with Elvis signing a new 7 year contract with RCA and the "Col making various special deals of his own with RCA for promotion of the records and tours and for assisting RCA in the development of merchandising and promo concepts"
Elvis got approximately $4.5 million and the Col. $6 million.

Brian
09-30-2008, 10:02 AM
That is something I have never heard before-where you get that info?

In the "Elvis Day by Day" by Guralnick and Jorgensen it is stated that the back catalogue was purchased with a single one time payment of $5.4 million.
The other money was for other things.
In all something like 10.5 million worth of business is done with Elvis signing a new 7 year contract with RCA and the "Col making various special deals of his own with RCA for promotion of the records and tours and for assisting RCA in the development of merchandising and promo concepts"
Elvis got approximately $4.5 million and the Col. $6 million.

From Colonel Parker

KPM
09-30-2008, 10:11 AM
Can someone give details about Elvis selling his contract or whatever it was back to RCA getting 8 million dollars and he didn';t have to do nothing. Did he do this because of the divorce settlement coming up and he needed money fast, I know Elvis was no fool, but I just don't think that was a good deal and elvis just saw it as a way to make alot of money for doing nothing really. I just dont see how you can put a price tag on songs like his hits.
There were other ways to get this money, without selling a lifetime of work outright. The idea that Elvis could not have come up with about $725,000 for Priscilla in a lump sum plus the monthly child support/alimony of about $14,000 without selling the catalogue is strange. Also she got 5% of a new music publishing company.
He could buy planes yet could not come up with this money without selling his work? Parker should have come up with something much smarter than the deal to sell all this music outright-but RCA had been trying to get this for a while.

KPM
09-30-2008, 10:18 AM
From Colonel Parker
Naturally that would be his position since it is regarded as one of the worst deals in the history of show business.
It ranks with his negotiating the long term Vegas deal on a tablecloth the night Elvis opened at the International.
Alex Shoofey, President of the International at the time, has said he was prepared to pay more and was amazed how quickly Parker wanted to lock up the deal for such a long time.
IMO its human nature is to not admit mistakes and to shade stories (especially if they can not be proven) and the Col. was as human as you or I.

utmom2008
09-30-2008, 10:38 AM
Of course it turned out when Priscilla wanted some more money in the divorce and Elvis sold his back catalouge of songs she and Lisa lost millions of dollars in future income because of it.
hope this helps

Not they will ever be hurting for money, but I wonder if Priscilla ever stops and thinks about her greed for money at that time would eventually cost her daughter and her grandchildren millions.:doh::hmm::doh::hmm:

ehollier
09-30-2008, 11:08 AM
I do believe that Col. Parker is the one who brokered the deal to sell Elvis' catalogue of songs in 1973 and the reason (as was everything the Col. did) was money. There was no doubt that Elvis needed the extra money because of the divorce; however, he could have gone about obtaining the extra money by in various other ways without selling his catalogue of music. And while it is easy to blame the Col. for this very poor business decision, I think Elvis just really didn't care one way or another by 1973.

As far as Priscilla being greedy in the divorce, Priscilla was entitled to the settlement that she received, however it was to be obtained, so she was not 'greedy'. Had she and Elvis not been divorced, I still see Elvis' catalogue being sold b/c -- with the Col. getting his 50% and Elvis just spending the rest anyway. So the outcome would have been the same - no catalogue and no money to show for it.

Brian
09-30-2008, 11:15 AM
Naturally that would be his position since it is regarded as one of the worst deals in the history of show business.
It ranks with his negotiating the long term Vegas deal on a tablecloth the night Elvis opened at the International.
Alex Shoofey, President of the International at the time, has said he was prepared to pay more and was amazed how quickly Parker wanted to lock up the deal for such a long time.
IMO its human nature is to not admit mistakes and to shade stories (especially if they can not be proven) and the Col. was as human as you or I.

I agree that the Vegas deal was a bad deal but didn't Elvis make 1 million for a months work? I don't think that's too shabby especially back then plus Colonel Parker might've been getting side deals or money on the side for himself.

Regarding the buyout he said he didn't feel comfortable making the deal and advised against it but Elvis told him to do it as he needed the money for his divorce and needed it fast.

utmom2008
09-30-2008, 11:20 AM
As far as Priscilla being greedy in the divorce, Priscilla was entitled to the settlement that she received, however it was to be obtained, so she was not 'greedy'.


That particular view is completely a matter of opinion. Some will see it one way...some will see it another way. It's not something that is fact-based.:blush::blink:

KPM
09-30-2008, 11:30 AM
I agree that the Vegas deal was a bad deal but didn't Elvis make 1 million for a months work? I don't think that's too shabby especially back then plus Colonel Parker might've been getting side deals or money on the side for himself.

Regarding the buyout he said he didn't feel comfortable making the deal and advised against it but Elvis told him to do it as he needed the money for his divorce and needed it fast.
It was not 1 million it was $500,000 a month according to "Elvis Day by Day" 1 million for 8 weeks work a year. You are correct it is not too shabby-but my point is that when Parker negotiated the Vegas deal he sold Elvis short he could have got much more according to Shoofey- wouldn't that extra money have come in handy when the divorce came about and it locked Elvis in to another long term deal. It shows Parker just did not understand the worth of his client. It was not smart. IMO.

Brian
09-30-2008, 11:37 AM
wouldn't that extra money have come in handy when the divorce came about and it locked Elvis in to another long term deal. It shows Parker just did not understand the worth of his client. It was not smart. IMO.

It might have come in handy but I bet you Elvis wouldv'e ended it spending it all and probably would have still had cash flow problems at the time of his divorce as Elvis liked to spend money.

Do you know what Sinatra, Streisand, Tom Jones and Wayne Newton were getting compared to Elvis?

Tony Trout
09-30-2008, 11:55 AM
I'm confused about something....

According to "Elvis Aaron Presley: Revelations From The Memphis Mafia", Priscilla didn't ask for more money until May and the RCA buyout occurred in March.

So....how could've the buyout been about getting more money for Priscilla in the divorce?

Brian
09-30-2008, 12:04 PM
I'm confused about something....

According to "Elvis Aaron Presley: Revelations From The Memphis Mafia", Priscilla didn't ask for more money until May and the RCA buyout occurred in March.

So....how could've the buyout been about getting more money for Priscilla in the divorce?

They probably got the dates mixed up as it's hard to think that far back to specific dates and times.

Elvis wanted the buyout because he needed the money for his divorce.

KPM
09-30-2008, 12:11 PM
It might have come in handy but I bet you Elvis wouldv'e ended it spending it all and probably would have still had cash flow problems at the time of his divorce as Elvis liked to spend money.

Do you know what Sinatra, Streisand, Tom Jones and Wayne Newton were getting compared to Elvis?
The only info I can find is this bit:
Liberace signed a deal in 1972 at the Hilton in 1972 for $300,000 a week according to the Wikipedia in its history of the International Hotel.
I can only assume that Sinatra, Streisand, Jones and Newton made near what Elvis did especially Sinatra and Newton. But none of them sold out every night as Elvis did. Sinatra after the mid 60s only did one show. By all accounts Vegas had never seen a draw as big and consistent as Elvis.

KPM
09-30-2008, 12:14 PM
They probably got the dates mixed up as it's hard to think that far back to specific dates and times.

Elvis wanted the buyout because he needed the money for his divorce.
Elvis may have wanted the money-but that does not mean he wanted the buyout. That would be Colonels story on this situation, and Elvis is not here to give a rebuttal.

ehollier
09-30-2008, 12:19 PM
They probably got the dates mixed up as it's hard to think that far back to specific dates and times.

Elvis wanted the buyout because he needed the money for his divorce.
Elvis may have wanted the money-but that does not mean he wanted the buyout. That would be Colonels story on this situation, and Elvis is not here to give a rebuttal.

I agree Ken. I also think that if the shortage of money was the issue, Vernon was the one who usually approached Col. Parker in these situations, right?? I also understand that Col. Parker needed some quick cash also and by selling the catalogue for a paltry sum of $5 million was the way to do. Do you realize that Col. got half half of that??? Insofar as the dates of the buyout, it has been widely reported that this happened in March, but negotiations had started months prior.

Donut
09-30-2008, 01:39 PM
Elvis got approximately $4.5 million and the Col. $6 million.

What a great deal!... for Parker. I know Elvis should be held responsible for not firing him but Parker has no excuse for taking advantage of him in such a way.

Unchained Melody
09-30-2008, 02:50 PM
What a great deal!... for Parker. I know Elvis should be held responsible for not firing him but Parker has no excuse for taking advantage of him in such a way.

Yeah that's what I'm saying aswell.
And its sad Elvis sold his back catologe of songs because he thought they didn't sell anymore, i mean right around the time of that deal American Graffeti was out or about to come out and was a huge it, Happy Days was starting to air and stuff like that going on.
I don't think elvis thought about what the deal would mean for his music for the future, i think he just saw it as a way to make alot of money in which he really needed...
As for Parker saying he tried to talk elvis out of the deal, why do i not believe that.:mad:

Donut
09-30-2008, 02:57 PM
As for Parker saying he tried to talk elvis out of the deal, why do i not believe that.:mad:

Simply because it can't be true. Seeing Parker's operating mode he wouldn't have come with the idea to Elvis if he didn't want the deal done, and the big piece of the cake he expected from it.

Unchained Melody
09-30-2008, 02:59 PM
Simply because it can't be true. Seeing Parker's operating mode he wouldn't have come with the idea to Elvis if he didn't want the deal done, and the big piece of the cake he expected from it.

Your right why talk his client out of it when he himself be getting 2 million dollars.:mad:
Man you gotta give it to Parker, he was a dealer man.

Donut
09-30-2008, 03:07 PM
Your right why talk his client out of it when he himself be getting 2 million dollars.:mad:
Man you gotta give it to Parker, he was a dealer man.

Do you think RCA approached Elvis personally to offer him the deal? If Parker didn't want it done he would have found the way to turn it down like he did with many other Elvis deals.

Unchained Melody
09-30-2008, 03:11 PM
Do you think RCA approached Elvis personally to offer him the deal? If Parker didn't want it done he would have found the way to turn it down like he did with many other Elvis deals.

Yeah I agree with you again, so its making it quiet obvious Parker did NOT try to close this one down...

Unchained Melody
09-30-2008, 03:24 PM
Hi Bradley
How is school going by the way?

It really sucks. but I had myself a sick day today to get caught up with what ive been missing on the net.lmao.:lmfao:

Brian
09-30-2008, 03:41 PM
They probably got the dates mixed up as it's hard to think that far back to specific dates and times.

Elvis wanted the buyout because he needed the money for his divorce.
Elvis may have wanted the money-but that does not mean he wanted the buyout. That would be Colonels story on this situation, and Elvis is not here to give a rebuttal.



Elvis was a grown up who was an intelligent person and he could make his own decisions.

Elvis was the one who had to sign the papers to make the deal final.

Unchained Melody
09-30-2008, 03:42 PM
[quote=KPM;249399]



Elvis was a grown up who was an intelligent person and he could make his own decisions.

Elvis was the one who had to sign the papers to make the deal final.

Yeah but he wasn't too much into the buisness side of things thats why he left stuff to the Colonel. Parker knew this and imo took advantage of that fact alot of the time this time included.

Donut
09-30-2008, 03:47 PM
[quote=Brian;249504]

Yeah but he wasn't too much into the buisness side of things thats why he left stuff to the Colonel. Parker knew this and imo took advantage of that fact alot of the time this time included.

Agreed. Parker knew that and the way to have Elvis under his thumb. Their long partnership couldn't have last so long if it were any other way.

Unchained Melody
09-30-2008, 03:56 PM
[quote=Col Jon Burrows;249506]

Agreed. Parker knew that and the way to have Elvis under his thumb. Their long partnership couldn't have last so long if it were any other way.

Of course thats what kept the relationship between the two going so long, parker got what parker wanted.

Brian
09-30-2008, 03:56 PM
[quote=Brian;249504]

Yeah but he wasn't too much into the buisness side of things thats why he left stuff to the Colonel. Parker knew this and imo took advantage of that fact alot of the time this time included.

I think he probably didn't want the deal and advised Elvis against it like he said but when Elvis told him to make the deal he made sure he got more money out of it than Elvis.

I've never seen fans of a singer always blame the manager of a singer for what they perceive as mistakes in his career like they do when it comes to Elvis.
rightly or wrongly Elvis made the deal.
Elvis disagreed or went against Parker and RCA many times over the years, nobody put a gun to his head over this.

Unchained Melody
09-30-2008, 04:00 PM
[quote=Col Jon Burrows;249506]

I think he probably didn't want the deal and advised Elvis against it like he said but when Elvis told him to make the deal he made sure he got more money out of it than Elvis.

I've never seen fans of a singer always blame the manager of a singer for what they perceive as mistakes in his career like they do when it comes to Elvis.
rightly or wrongly Elvis made the deal.
Elvis disagreed or went against Parker and RCA many times over the years, nobody put a gun to his head over this.

Well if Parker wouldn't have done the things he did, he wouldn't blame him.
hey elvis gets part of it too the blame that is for not firing that SOB of a manager he had. He was a carny, who lost touch in the buisness side of things by the 60's had come to an end. Parker didn't look at expanding Elvis' talent, just looked at what was the fastest and easiest way to make a dollar. And Elvis was blind enough to let him get by with it til the end.

Brian
09-30-2008, 04:09 PM
[quote=Brian;249515]

Well if Parker wouldn't have done the things he did, he wouldn't blame him.
hey elvis gets part of it too the blame that is for not firing that SOB of a manager he had. He was a carny, who lost touch in the buisness side of things by the 60's had come to an end. Parker didn't look at expanding Elvis' talent, just looked at what was the fastest and easiest way to make a dollar. And Elvis was blind enough to let him get by with it til the end.

Aloha From Hawaii was Parkers idea that was great

He also kept Elvis away from doing t.v. interviews and from signing on variety shows which kept him from being overexposed in the 70's like it did Tom Jones and Johnny Cash so I think that was smart as well.

most fans do blame Parker for almost everything

It was Elvis who kept him around everybody thinks his career would've been so much better if he fired him I say in a couple ways it would and in others it would've stayed the same.

Unchained Melody
09-30-2008, 04:17 PM
[quote=Col Jon Burrows;249516]

Aloha From Hawaii was Parkers idea that was great

He also kept Elvis away from doing t.v. interviews and from signing on variety shows which kept him from being overexposed in the 70's like it did Tom Jones and Johnny Cash so I think that was smart as well.

most fans do blame Parker for almost everything

It was Elvis who kept him around everybody thinks his career would've been so much better if he fired him I say in a couple ways it would and in others it would've stayed the same.

You can blame both. Parker for the things he did and didn't do, and elvis for staying with Parker. As to saying his career would have been the same i really disagree there. THeres no way in knowing what might have been.

KPM
09-30-2008, 04:45 PM
[QUOTE=Col Jon Burrows;249506]

I think he probably didn't want the deal and advised Elvis against it like he said but when Elvis told him to make the deal he made sure he got more money out of it than Elvis.

I've never seen fans of a singer always blame the manager of a singer for what they perceive as mistakes in his career like they do when it comes to Elvis.
rightly or wrongly Elvis made the deal.
Elvis disagreed or went against Parker and RCA many times over the years, nobody put a gun to his head over this.
I do not blame Parker for everything-but business deals in the entertainment industry were what he was hired for because obviously Elvis felt he needed someone to make sure he was not taken. In order to turn your career over to someone you have to be convinced they are trustworthy-Parker convinced Elvis and his parents he was. Its strange that Elvis is open to critiques of every kind (and in some instances rightly so) but Parker is not?
I think when it comes to the business side of Elvis's career, and how deals influenced his career that Parker is accountable. He made mistakes in some huge deals. -You seem to rely on his every word as gospel (you have a right to do so)-but I do not.
I think he was capable of misleading others and that he probably did so during his life. Elvis may have been called many names-but Parker was the self proclaimed Snowman. He was a man who few got to know well and he wanted it that way.
Brian you and I just see the situation much different, opposite in every way on this subject.

ehollier
09-30-2008, 04:53 PM
I would also be interested in the relationship between Vernon and Col. Parker. I think that Vernon approached Col. when money was tight (throughout the years) and Col. would come up with some scheme to make Elvis money and in doing so, Elvis would probably consult with his father and then make is decision, but Donut is correct -- Parker wouldn't have don't it if there wasn't something in it for him.

Unchained Melody
09-30-2008, 04:57 PM
Hey Liz, I like your new avator. :P(y)

ehollier
09-30-2008, 04:59 PM
Hey Liz, I like your new avator. :P(y)

Merci Beaucoup, Brad!!!!!! :D:D:D

Unchained Melody
09-30-2008, 05:02 PM
Merci Beaucoup, Brad!!!!!! :D:D:D

Hmm...your welcome :lmfao:(y)(y)

ehollier
09-30-2008, 05:03 PM
Hmm...your welcome :lmfao:(y)(y)

:D:D:D:D:D:D

Brian
09-30-2008, 06:42 PM
something is wrong everytime I say something it comes out that Jon Burrows aka Bradley said what I said.

Brian
09-30-2008, 06:49 PM
[quote=Brian;249519]

You can blame both. Parker for the things he did and didn't do, and elvis for staying with Parker. As to saying his career would have been the same i really disagree there. THeres no way in knowing what might have been.



I didn't say the same I said some things would have stayed the same and some things would have been different.

Brian
09-30-2008, 07:03 PM
.



Parker deserves a lot of blame and rightly so it's just that some fans go overboard with blaming him for everything and giving Elvis a pass all the time.
There are things that I think Parker has been wrongly blamed for and I feel I have given good explainations for why he shouldn't be.
I'm not a Colonel Parker fan and don't take every word of his as gospel i just try to be fair to everyone. The reason I don't blame him for this is because he explained the deal to Elvis and if Elvis hadn't agreed to it it wouldn't have been possible and I just believe him about Elvis wanting the deal because of his divorce and him advising Elvis against it because I've heard it from other people besides him.

Brian
09-30-2008, 08:24 PM
I suppose if anyone is to be blamed for this (If anyone is) it's Priscilla because if she hadn't gone back on her word and wanted more money the buyout wouldn't have happened. So.......................

Unchained Melody
09-30-2008, 08:44 PM
[quote=Col Jon Burrows;249523]

I didn't say the same I said some things would have stayed the same and some things would have been different.

Well, yeah, of course that would've been the case I agree.

Unchained Melody
09-30-2008, 08:45 PM
something is wrong everytime I say something it comes out that Jon Burrows aka Bradley said what I said.

Someones mis-quoting someone. :doh:lmao

Unchained Melody
09-30-2008, 08:45 PM
I suppose if anyone is to be blamed for this (If anyone is) it's Priscilla because if she hadn't gone back on her word and wanted more money the buyout wouldn't have happened. So.......................

Shows you how good her word is don't it.

utmom2008
10-01-2008, 12:40 AM
Shows you how good her word is don't it.

Bingo...yes it does!

BTW...I thought you were going to keep that last avatar? How many times a day do you change them?:doh::doh::doh:

Donut
10-01-2008, 01:23 AM
.



Parker deserves a lot of blame and rightly so it's just that some fans go overboard with blaming him for everything and giving Elvis a pass all the time.
There are things that I think Parker has been wrongly blamed for and I feel I have given good explainations for why he shouldn't be.
I'm not a Colonel Parker fan and don't take every word of his as gospel i just try to be fair to everyone. The reason I don't blame him for this is because he explained the deal to Elvis and if Elvis hadn't agreed to it it wouldn't have been possible and I just believe him about Elvis wanting the deal because of his divorce and him advising Elvis against it because I've heard it from other people besides him.

Brian, it was proven by a court after Elvis' death that Parker took advantage of Elvis.

PS. I think I didn't word that right but I guess you know what I mean.

Brian
10-01-2008, 08:55 AM
Brian, it was proven by a court after Elvis' death that Parker took advantage of Elvis.

PS. I think I didn't word that right but I guess you know what I mean.

I know that. that wasn't what I was saying

Elvis let Parker take advantage of him while he was alive and the estate was willing to keep paying him 50% after Elvis died.

It was Elvis choice who he wanted to manage him and he wanted the Colonel evidently.

presley31
10-01-2008, 08:57 AM
I still think the col had some kind of hold on elvis, just don't know what it was?

ehollier
10-01-2008, 09:00 AM
I still think the col had some kind of hold on elvis, just don't know what it was?

As bizarre as it sounds, I think he did, too. It would appear from what has been written that Col. Parker was the only one that Elvis was yield and comply with and seemed surprisingly docile while doing it. I find it very strange indeed.

Tony Trout
10-01-2008, 09:22 AM
I may be wrong but from what I've read, the RCA buyout was all Parker's doing. The deal went down on March 1, 1973. It seems that Vernon went and told Elvis, "You've spent us into the ground! There's no more money!" and then Parker went to RCA and negotiated the "buyout".

I guess I'm not understanding exactly how it all ties in with Priscilla asking for more money from the impending divorce in May? If she needed more money, wouldn't she have asked for it before the buyout and not afterwards???

Or maybe I just answered my own questions....

ehollier
10-01-2008, 09:27 AM
I may be wrong but from what I've read, the RCA buyout was all Parker's doing.....

So did I, but what do I know???

Tony Trout
10-01-2008, 09:30 AM
So did I, but what do I know???


I agree wholeheartedly, Elizabeth. Read my additions to my post above yours.

ehollier
10-01-2008, 09:37 AM
I may be wrong but from what I've read, the RCA buyout was all Parker's doing. The deal went down on March 1, 1973. It seems that Vernon went and told Elvis, "You've spent us into the ground! There's no more money!" and then Parker went to RCA and negotiated the "buyout".

I guess I'm not understanding exactly how it all ties in with Priscilla asking for more money in May? If she needed more money, wouldn't she have asked for it before the buyout and not afterwards???

It was always my understanding that any talk of money was always b/t Vernon and Col. Parker. I have never recalled reading that Elvis needing money was ever a topic that he spoke of with Col. Vernon was the pipeline of the monetary situation with Col. Parker.

Insofar as the divorce, by March, 1973, Priscilla had agreed to a sum far far less than the eventual amount that was agreed upon in October, 1973.

presley31
10-01-2008, 10:02 AM
Something l came accoss on the internet


Colonel Parker had negotiated a complex deal whereby Presley sold back to RCA the rights to many of his masters in exchange for a lump-sum payment of which only $2.8 million came to him. Essentially, after 1973 Parker was earning nearly 50 percent commission (as opposed to the 10 percent industry standard). Worse, however, Presley was not earning any more royalties on sides recorded before 1973, although they continued to sell in the millions year after year. Parker’s need to satisfy personal gambling debts was said to be the reason for the self-serving deal.

source:http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/elvispresley/biography

KPM
10-01-2008, 10:26 AM
.



Parker deserves a lot of blame and rightly so it's just that some fans go overboard with blaming him for everything and giving Elvis a pass all the time.
There are things that I think Parker has been wrongly blamed for and I feel I have given good explainations for why he shouldn't be.
I'm not a Colonel Parker fan and don't take every word of his as gospel i just try to be fair to everyone. The reason I don't blame him for this is because he explained the deal to Elvis and if Elvis hadn't agreed to it it wouldn't have been possible and I just believe him about Elvis wanting the deal because of his divorce and him advising Elvis against it because I've heard it from other people besides him.
???I do not think Elvis gets a pass all the time-on the contrary I think our board shows he does not get a pass on much of anything.
That said Parker is not going to get a pass either. I think I have shown a multitude of instances where his actions are in doubt as to the best interests of Elvis. Hal Kanter a writer producer and director spent a couple of months with Elvis and the Col in 57 in order to prepare to make Loving You. Kanter said he found the Col. much more interesting than Elvis-but he also said in watching them for 2 months he noticed that Col had Elvis's interests in view-but he felt that in Parker always had Parkers interests at the front of everything. He also said he would trust Parker as far as he could see him. That was way back in 57. I won't go into all the other things like this deal, etc... because it would just be repeating what I and others have posted.
In order to take advantage of someone-one party has to be naive or just have no expertise or talent in what ever area is involved and the other party has to be willing to take the advantage. I think in many situations that is what happened.
I do not say there was no affection between them, nor that they did not like each other. You can like someone, and still have problems with their actions and you can like someone and have the attitude-but business is business.
Parker did many things which helped-but many big things which I think started sowing the seeds of problems way back to 1956. IMO

Donut
10-01-2008, 10:52 AM
I know that. that wasn't what I was saying

Elvis let Parker take advantage of him while he was alive and the estate was willing to keep paying him 50% after Elvis died.

It was Elvis choice who he wanted to manage him and he wanted the Colonel evidently.

Elvis didn't know how much Parker was getting from de deal with RCA, neither he knew Parker wasn't Parker and I really doubt he knew how much his manager was getting from the merchandising he was selling with his own name on.

Brian
10-01-2008, 11:12 AM
Elvis didn't know how much Parker was getting from de deal with RCA, neither he knew Parker wasn't Parker and I really doubt he knew how much his manager was getting from the merchandising he was selling with his own name on.

He had many opportunities to find out but never did.

What Parker did was unethical about taking 50% of his income from 68-77 and getting side deals but Elvis shouldv'e paid more attention to the business side of things. Colonel Parker was a slick guy though he managed to get side deals with Eddy Arnold too.

Showbiz is a dog eat dog world.

Brian
10-01-2008, 11:27 AM
???I do not think Elvis gets a pass all the time-on the contrary I think our board shows he does not get a pass on much of anything.
That said Parker is not going to get a pass either. I think I have shown a multitude of instances where his actions are in doubt as to the best interests of Elvis. Hal Kanter a writer producer and director spent a couple of months with Elvis and the Col in 57 in order to prepare to make Loving You. Kanter said he found the Col. much more interesting than Elvis-but he also said in watching them for 2 months he noticed that Col had Elvis's interests in view-but he felt that in Parker always had Parkers interests at the front of everything. He also said he would trust Parker as far as he could see him. That was way back in 57. I won't go into all the other things like this deal, etc... because it would just be repeating what I and others have posted.
In order to take advantage of someone-one party has to be naive or just have no expertise or talent in what ever area is involved and the other party has to be willing to take the advantage. I think in many situations that is what happened.
I do not say there was no affection between them, nor that they did not like each other. You can like someone, and still have problems with their actions and you can like someone and have the attitude-but business is business.
Parker did many things which helped-but many big things which I think started sowing the seeds of problems way back to 1956. IMO


I wasn't specifically talking about you or people on this board but Elvis fans in general as they give Elvis a pass all the time and say Col. Parker is the devil etc. When Bradley originally asked the question about the 73 buyout I gave him Colonel Parker's side of things since I thought he would know the most about the deal since he handled the deal and I just thought everyone on this board would appreciate hearing the Col. side of things since you don't hear them that often. Whether he was telling the truth about not wanting to make the deal because he thought it was a bad deal and that he only made the deal after Elvis insisted is you're call to make I just put the information out there and everyone can make up their own mind. I will say though that fans don't seem to give the Colonel the benefit of the doubt very much.

presley31
10-01-2008, 11:36 AM
I doubt very much you get the 100% turth from col parker. once a carnie always a carnie

KPM
10-01-2008, 11:41 AM
He had many opportunities to find out but never did.

What Parker did was unethical about taking 50% of his income from 68-77 and getting side deals but Elvis shouldv'e paid more attention to the business side of things. Colonel Parker was a slick guy though he managed to get side deals with Eddy Arnold too.

Showbiz is a dog eat dog world.
Elvis hired Elvis to do just this-pay attention to the business side of things.
He trusted Parker to do so- would you agree on that?
He was not business man, nor accountant, he had no inclination nor talent at these things (nor do most people including entertainers) Elvis hired Parker to protect him in these dealings-to make sure his intersests would give him the most money and to promote his career.
If Elvis could have personally done those things he would not have hired Parker-I think we can agree on that. In order to sign Elvis Parker had to meet his parents and convince them all he was trustworthy, and would fairly look after Elvis's interests. He obviously did convince them all and he signed Elvis. That is my point in a nutshell, he convinced them that even in the
"dog eat dog of show business" he was trustworthy. On many things I think he was and on some important ones I think he was not.
But if even in one instance of importance he did not live up to that trust-he violated it. In all areas of creative importance be it- recordings or movies even TV- the Col and his deals played a huge role in squashing creative opportunities. Elvis "trusted" that the COl knew best in directing his career -that is what he was hired for. Elvis should have watched closer-but he trusted the Col. Elvis should have understood business better-he did not- he trusted the Col. He should have got someone outside of the Presley circle to review some of these deals and side deals-he did not he trusted the Col!
He should have understood the downside of why "requiring songwriters to sign over a piece of their royaltees" was in the long run not creatively productive he learned that way to late-WHY?-Because he trusted the Col.
I have said this before by the time Elvis was beginning to suspect the Col he was so dependent on him and so unsure of what to do that it was too late.
When he tried to fire him he Parker tied Elvis and Vernon up with so paperwork on "back commissions and fees for services" that it scared them into just letting it drop.
Finally when the estate sued the Col. the court sited instances of his conflict of interests-in other words he was not always negotiating with Elvis's best interests in mind.........But Elvis trusted the Colonel.

KPM
10-01-2008, 11:44 AM
I know that. that wasn't what I was saying

Elvis let Parker take advantage of him while he was alive and the estate was willing to keep paying him 50% after Elvis died.
It was Elvis choice who he wanted to manage him and he wanted the Colonel evidently.
He signed a deal with Vernon to do so-and later the estate did not know the extent of his conflicts of interest-until they began to dig further.

Brian
10-01-2008, 11:45 AM
I may be wrong but from what I've read, the RCA buyout was all Parker's doing. The deal went down on March 1, 1973. It seems that Vernon went and told Elvis, "You've spent us into the ground! There's no more money!" and then Parker went to RCA and negotiated the "buyout".

I guess I'm not understanding exactly how it all ties in with Priscilla asking for more money from the impending divorce in May? If she needed more money, wouldn't she have asked for it before the buyout and not afterwards???

Or maybe I just answered my own questions....


she originally agreed to a much lower divorce settlement and then later said she wasn't aware of the California laws where her and Elvis lived part of the time she and Elvis were married that allowed her to seek more money.
She asked Elvis for more money and he agreed to give it to her that's something that pissed Vernon off but Elvis didn't have the money at the time so...........

Brian
10-01-2008, 11:48 AM
He signed a deal with Vernon to do so-and later the estate did not know the extent of his conflicts of interest-until they began to dig further.

that's been discussed before it wasn't until the probate judge and the court appointed guarded for Lisa looked into Parkers shaded dealings and ordered the estate to sue him and stop paying him.

KPM
10-01-2008, 11:51 AM
that's been discussed before it wasn't until the probate judge and the court appointed guarded for Lisa looked into Parkers shaded dealings and ordered the estate to sue him and stop paying him.
I think I was part of the discussion.;)

Brian
10-01-2008, 11:53 AM
Elvis hired Elvis to do just this-pay attention to the business side of things.
He trusted Parker to do so- would you agree on that?
He was not business man, nor accountant, he had no inclination nor talent at these things (nor do most people including entertainers) Elvis hired Parker to protect him in these dealings-to make sure his intersests would give him the most money and to promote his career.
If Elvis could have personally done those things he would not have hired Parker-I think we can agree on that. In order to sign Elvis Parker had to meet his parents and convince them all he was trustworthy, and would fairly look after Elvis's interests. He obviously did convince them all and he signed Elvis. That is my point in a nutshell, he convinced them that even in the
"dog eat dog of show business" he was trustworthy. On many things I think he was and on some important ones I think he was not.
But if even in one instance of importance he did not live up to that trust-he violated it. In all areas of creative importance be it- recordings or movies even TV- the Col and his deals played a huge role in squashing creative opportunities. Elvis "trusted" that the COl knew best in directing his career -that is what he was hired for. Elvis should have watched closer-but he trusted the Col. Elvis should have understood business better-he did not- he trusted the Col. He should have got someone outside of the Presley circle to review some of these deals and side deals-he did not he trusted the Col!
He should have understood the downside of why "requiring songwriters to sign over a piece of their royaltees" was in the long run not creatively productive he learned that way to late-WHY?-Because he trusted the Col.
I have said this before by the time Elvis was beginning to suspect the Col he was so dependent on him and so unsure of what to do that it was too late.
When he tried to fire him he Parker tied Elvis and Vernon up with so paperwork on "back commissions and fees for services" that it scared them into just letting it drop.
Finally when the estate sued the Col. the court sited instances of his conflict of interests-in other words he was not always negotiating with Elvis's best interests in mind.........But Elvis trusted the Colonel.

Colonel Parker was hired to make the best deals he could on behalf of Elvis that's true but many entertainers get took advantage of by their crooked agents not just Elvis and I was saying it would have been benefitial to Elvis to learn more and be more involved in the business side of things.
so Parker wouldn't have been able to take advantage of him in some instances

presley31
10-01-2008, 11:53 AM
I may be wrong but from what I've read, the RCA buyout was all Parker's doing. The deal went down on March 1, 1973. It seems that Vernon went and told Elvis, "You've spent us into the ground! There's no more money!" and then Parker went to RCA and negotiated the "buyout".

I guess I'm not understanding exactly how it all ties in with Priscilla asking for more money from the impending divorce in May? If she needed more money, wouldn't she have asked for it before the buyout and not afterwards???

Or maybe I just answered my own questions....

This is my understanding too tony

KPM
10-01-2008, 12:03 PM
This is my understanding too tony
My problem with the buyont is that if Parker was the manager of legend he was thought to be-would he not have found a way "other than selling the back catalogue" Some of the most valuble recordings in history and he let them go. Its just beyond imagination that some deal other than this could not have been found by Parker. Even if "for the sake of argument" you say Elvis told him to do it-Parker the expert manager and businessman should stopped him and said "These are much more valuble than the offer-they are constant income forever" But did Col. see it that way? I think not-which was a mistake no matter how you look at it.

ehollier
10-01-2008, 12:16 PM
My problem with the buyont is that if Parker was the manager of legend he was thought to be-would he not have found a way "other than selling the back catalogue" Some of the most valuble recordings in history and he let them go. Its just beyond imagination that some deal other than this could not have been found by Parker. Even if "for the sake of argument" you say Elvis told him to do it-Parker the expert manager and businessman should stopped him and said "These are much more valuble than the offer-they are constant income forever" But did Col. see it that way? I think not-which was a mistake no matter how you look at it.

Ken, we all agree that selling the back catalogue was a huge mistake, but are saying that it wasn't Col.'s idea or that he was just hugely shortsighted by doing so??

KPM
10-01-2008, 12:32 PM
Ken, we all agree that selling the back catalogue was a huge mistake, but are saying that it wasn't Col.'s idea or that he was just hugely shortsighted by doing so??
I have always heard it was Parkers idea- he felt they had sold well but were no longer selling-but regardless of whos idea it was it shows how Parker did not understand the worth of Elvis's voice through those recordings.
MIcheal Jackson outbid Paul McCartney for a large portion of the publishing rights to their songs in 1984 and got it for 48 million-now those same publishing rights are worth near $400 million according to Money magazine.
What would the pre 1973 Elvis Presley catalogue of recordings be worth today-sold for under 6 million in 73?
Parker was not just shortsighted he was blind in this instance. IMO

ehollier
10-01-2008, 12:34 PM
I have always heard it was Parkers idea- he felt they had sold well but were no longer selling-but regardless of whos idea it was it shows how Parker did not understand the worth of Elvis's voice through those recordings.
MIcheal Jackson outbid Paul McCartney for a large portion of the publishing rights to their songs in 1984 and got it for 48 million-now those same publishing rights are worth near $400 million according to Money magazine.
What would the pre 1973 Elvis Presley catalogue of recordings be worth today-sold for under 6 million in 73?
Parker was not just shortsighted he was blind in this instance. IMO

Thanks for clearing it up. I was a little lost with all the banter b/t you and Brian to figure out just where you stood. Sorry to lose track!!!

KPM
10-01-2008, 12:40 PM
Thanks for clearing it up. I was a little lost with all the banter b/t you and Brian to figure out just where you stood. Sorry to lose track!!!
No problem, I could not say who's idea it was for sure, like most things in which we have no direct knowledge of.
But this deal was the best deal RCA ever made-with the exception of signing Elvis originally-which started the ball rolling to the 1973 deal. IMO

utmom2008
10-01-2008, 01:04 PM
???I do not think Elvis gets a pass all the time-on the contrary I think our board shows he does not get a pass on much of anything.
what happened.


Gail and I had this exact conversation the other night. EVERYONE gets a pass before Elvis does. Lousy husband, lousy boyfriend, lousy lover, lousy friend, lousy business man...the list goes on and on.:blush::blush:

ehollier
10-01-2008, 01:13 PM
Gail and I had this exact conversation the other night. EVERYONE gets a pass before Elvis does. Lousy husband, lousy boyfriend, lousy lover, lousy friend, lousy business man...the list goes on and on.:blush::blush:

Well, I don't know Rosanne. He was a devoted son, father, unbelievably beautiful, extremely charming, talented, generous to a fault, patriotic, had charisma oozing from his every pore, apparently very sensitive.

utmom2008
10-01-2008, 01:14 PM
I have said this before by the time Elvis was beginning to suspect the Col he was so dependent on him and so unsure of what to do that it was too late.
When he tried to fire him he Parker tied Elvis and Vernon up with so paperwork on "back commissions and fees for services" that it scared them into just letting it drop.
Finally when the estate sued the Col. the court sited instances of his conflict of interests-in other words he was not always negotiating with Elvis's best interests in mind.........But Elvis trusted the Colonel.

Ken, I agree with you here 100%.(y)(y)



But this deal was the best deal RCA ever made-with the exception of signing Elvis originally-which started the ball rolling to the 1973 deal. IMO

Yes, that's the understatement of the year.:blink::blink::blink:

ehollier
10-01-2008, 01:15 PM
..............But this deal was the best deal RCA ever made-with the exception of signing Elvis originally-which started the ball rolling to the 1973 deal. IMO

They probably haven't stop celebrating since!!!!!!!!

midnight
10-01-2008, 01:17 PM
[QUOTE=ehollier;249713]Well, I don't know Rosanne. He was a devoted son, father, unbelievably beautiful, extremely charming, talented, generous to a fault, patriotic, had charisma oozing from his every pore, apparently very sensitive.[/QU

We know that ehollier but I am beginning to think a lot do not share the same views!:blush:

KPM
10-01-2008, 01:26 PM
Gail and I had this exact conversation the other night. EVERYONE gets a pass before Elvis does. Lousy husband, lousy boyfriend, lousy lover, lousy friend, lousy business man...the list goes on and on.:blush::blush:
I really think because he was the "center of it all" and because of the "carefully crafted image" that many hold his feet and memory to the fire even more closely than everyone else. They want to make sure he is held accountable on all fronts-but that holds true for all those who surrounded that "center" they too made mistakes, they also had their own problems and shortcomings. Because Elvis did make mistakes, did have problems does not give everyone else involved a free pass. Fair is fair on all fronts. IMO

utmom2008
10-01-2008, 01:26 PM
Well, I don't know Rosanne. He was a devoted son, father, unbelievably beautiful, extremely charming, talented, generous to a fault, patriotic, had charisma oozing from his every pore, apparently very sensitive.


We know that ehollier but I am beginning to think a lot do not share the same views!:blush:

Thank you Kim...I believe you understood my point perfectly.;););):D

ehollier
10-01-2008, 01:28 PM
[quote=midnight;249716]

Thank you Kim...I believe you understood my point perfectly.;););):D

You are quite welcome Rosanne.

Brian
10-01-2008, 01:29 PM
I have always heard it was Parkers idea- he felt they had sold well but were no longer selling-but regardless of whos idea it was it shows how Parker did not understand the worth of Elvis's voice through those recordings.
MIcheal Jackson outbid Paul McCartney for a large portion of the publishing rights to their songs in 1984 and got it for 48 million-now those same publishing rights are worth near $400 million according to Money magazine.
What would the pre 1973 Elvis Presley catalogue of recordings be worth today-sold for under 6 million in 73?
Parker was not just shortsighted he was blind in this instance. IMO


I would have sold them for 15 million in 1973 that would've been a lot of money. As you know Colonel Parker told Elvis it was a bad idea but Elvis told him to do or else. (Source Colonel Parker) I think this whole mess is Scatters fault.

Brian
10-01-2008, 01:39 PM
forgot to mention Elvis didn't give away the publishing on the songs he signed away his future royalty rights on any songs recorded pre 73 but he maintaned the publishing rights.

utmom2008
10-01-2008, 01:42 PM
They want to make sure he is held accountable on all fronts-but that holds true for all those who surrounded that "center" they too made mistakes, they also had their own problems and shortcomings. Because Elvis did make mistakes, did have problems does not give everyone else involved a free pass. Fair is fair on all fronts. IMO


Excellent!! Very well said and I agree with you completely!:notworthy:notworthy:notworthy(y)

kathy parkinson
10-01-2008, 01:49 PM
[/b][/u]


Excellent!! Very well said and I agree with you completely!:notworthy:notworthy:notworthy(y)

Make that two, very wee said.:notworthy:notworthy:notworthy

kathy parkinson
10-01-2008, 01:50 PM
Duh, that should have said well not wee, been a long day

utmom2008
10-01-2008, 01:53 PM
Make that two, very wee said.:notworthy:notworthy:notworthy


Duh, that should have said well not wee, been a long day

:lmfao::lmfao::lmfao: (y)(y)(y)

Donut
10-01-2008, 02:03 PM
Elvis hired Elvis to do just this-pay attention to the business side of things.
He trusted Parker to do so- would you agree on that?
He was not business man, nor accountant, he had no inclination nor talent at these things (nor do most people including entertainers) Elvis hired Parker to protect him in these dealings-to make sure his intersests would give him the most money and to promote his career.
If Elvis could have personally done those things he would not have hired Parker-I think we can agree on that. In order to sign Elvis Parker had to meet his parents and convince them all he was trustworthy, and would fairly look after Elvis's interests. He obviously did convince them all and he signed Elvis. That is my point in a nutshell, he convinced them that even in the
"dog eat dog of show business" he was trustworthy. On many things I think he was and on some important ones I think he was not.
But if even in one instance of importance he did not live up to that trust-he violated it. In all areas of creative importance be it- recordings or movies even TV- the Col and his deals played a huge role in squashing creative opportunities. Elvis "trusted" that the COl knew best in directing his career -that is what he was hired for. Elvis should have watched closer-but he trusted the Col. Elvis should have understood business better-he did not- he trusted the Col. He should have got someone outside of the Presley circle to review some of these deals and side deals-he did not he trusted the Col!
He should have understood the downside of why "requiring songwriters to sign over a piece of their royaltees" was in the long run not creatively productive he learned that way to late-WHY?-Because he trusted the Col.
I have said this before by the time Elvis was beginning to suspect the Col he was so dependent on him and so unsure of what to do that it was too late.
When he tried to fire him he Parker tied Elvis and Vernon up with so paperwork on "back commissions and fees for services" that it scared them into just letting it drop.
Finally when the estate sued the Col. the court sited instances of his conflict of interests-in other words he was not always negotiating with Elvis's best interests in mind.........But Elvis trusted the Colonel.

Exactly my thoughts. I think Elvis was responsible for not firing Elvis after the movie years but I would never blame him for being robbed that way.

KPM
10-01-2008, 03:04 PM
forgot to mention Elvis didn't give away the publishing on the songs he signed away his future royalty rights on any songs recorded pre 73 but he maintaned the publishing rights.
I knew this Brian-my point was in bringing up the Jackson/Beatles deal was that the value of such things-publishing rights in the Beatles case or royalty rights to Elvis's pre-73 catalogue of songs is immense.

KPM
10-01-2008, 03:24 PM
I would have sold them for 15 million in 1973 that would've been a lot of money. As you know Colonel Parker told Elvis it was a bad idea but Elvis told him to do or else. (Source Colonel Parker) I think this whole mess is Scatters fault.
I will take his own explanation on his involvement in, possibly, the worst deal in entertainment history with a large grain of salt.
But even if by some chance it is true-there had to be options other than this sale-and Parker by his own instincts to smell out money-should have come up with anything to avoid this. Couldn't Parker personally have loaned Elvis money to cover any problem with Priscilla?
Couldn't he have put together a new merchandising deal that cut Elvis in for more money? Couldn't he have negotiated for a new special in the fall? Couldn't he have put feelers out for Elvis to enter into a new film project?
I know how you feel on the World Tour Idea so I will bypass an obvious source of more cash than the 2 of them had ever seen.
So-couldn't he have booked Elvis into the many larger venues, 60,000 seat stadiums where Elvis had never played before. His usual venues were in the 10,000 to 25,000 size how much more money would 10 dates at another 35,000 tickets per hit raise? Even raising ticket prices a bit on the next tour? Vegas owed a lot to Elvis-surely a deal could have been brokered to advance Elvis the money on an added month to his contract. Those ideas are off the top of my head-and I am not Parker who knew the ins and outs of how to get the extra dollar from whatever he did.
Perhaps Scatter should have handled this deal.;)

Brian
10-01-2008, 05:50 PM
I will take his own explanation on his involvement in, possibly, the worst deal in entertainment history with a large grain of salt.
But even if by some chance it is true-there had to be options other than this sale-and Parker by his own instincts to smell out money-should have come up with anything to avoid this. Couldn't Parker personally have loaned Elvis money to cover any problem with Priscilla?
Couldn't he have put together a new merchandising deal that cut Elvis in for more money? Couldn't he have negotiated for a new special in the fall? Couldn't he have put feelers out for Elvis to enter into a new film project?
I know how you feel on the World Tour Idea so I will bypass an obvious source of more cash than the 2 of them had ever seen.
So-couldn't he have booked Elvis into the many larger venues, 60,000 seat stadiums where Elvis had never played before. His usual venues were in the 10,000 to 25,000 size how much more money would 10 dates at another 35,000 tickets per hit raise? Even raising ticket prices a bit on the next tour? Vegas owed a lot to Elvis-surely a deal could have been brokered to advance Elvis the money on an added month to his contract. Those ideas are off the top of my head-and I am not Parker who knew the ins and outs of how to get the extra dollar from whatever he did.
Perhaps Scatter should have handled this deal.;)

I read Elvis needed extra cash in 75 so Colonel came up with the new years eve show at Poniact Silverdome


Colonel Parker might have sold those rights for 5.4 millions for a few reasons and one might be that Parker being 64 years at the time didn't really think how much those royalties from those recording would be worth 20-30 years in the future. 2. 5.4 million was a lot of money in those days
3. Maybe that's as high as RCA would go for and so Parker took it

ehollier
10-01-2008, 11:48 PM
When in doubt about some Elvis fact, I usually refer to Peter Guralnick. This is his take on the whole ’73 buy-out. For those who would like to read it for themselves, pages 491-496, Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley.

“The Colonel meanwhile had finalized the deal that RCA vice president, Mel Ilberman had first broached the previous fall (1972) [emph. added], with Elvis' full assent and enthusiastic support, he sold all rights to his client's back catalogue.

RCA, of course, like any record company, already owned the master recordings and the right to market them in perpetuity. That was never at issue, not even with the Colonel. What was constantly at issue, in endless nagging skirmishes that were never fully resolved, were matters of royalty payments, the actual use to which the catalogue could be put (over which Col., whether by custom or contract, maintained absolute control), and other contractual elements that he had never put down on paper but that the Col. was always hinting might prove to be embarrassing to the record company if they were ever revealed. What RCA representative Ilberman proposed was to do away with the source of conflict once and for all by buying out Elvis and Col. In exchange for one single lump payment, the artist would give up all claim on future royalties, his manger would give up any potential ground for troublesome dispute, and RCA would establish once and for all their right to do whatever they wanted with the music.

This gamble was unprecedented in the record business. The offer that was made was obtained by reviewing the royalty payments over the past 7 years which totaled to roughly $600,000 in a good year. With that figure in mind, RCA came up with a figure of $3 million, a prudent investment that could earn out for RCA in five or six years.

The initial meeting was set up at the conclusion of the Vegas engagement September, 1972. [emph. added] RCA offered $3 million and Col. came back with a counteroffer of $5 million which RCA immediately seized upon.

A contract that was formalized over the next couple of months would come to $5.4 million and was backdated to March 1, 1973 when the Col.’s new 50-50 personal management agreement would go into effect. [emph. added]

In addition to this money, RCA obtained another 7 year contract, guaranteeing $500,000 a year against royalty earnings on the 2 new albums and 4 singles for which Elvis would be contractually obligated to each year."

Unchained Melody
10-02-2008, 06:43 AM
Colonel Parker was hired to make the best deals he could on behalf of Elvis that's true but many entertainers get took advantage of by their crooked agents not just Elvis and I was saying it would have been benefitial to Elvis to learn more and be more involved in the business side of things.
so Parker wouldn't have been able to take advantage of him in some instances

OK I think we all understand that Elvis was a grown man and should've left Parker if Parker was screwing him over so bad, but you know what, Elvis had trust in Parker, I mean he brought him up from nothing and always thought Colonel had Elvis' best interest in mind but you know he took advantage of Elvis and his fathers lack of knowledge for show buiz and did what would benefit Parker. So anyone want to stick up for Elvis for once geez. I think he was done bad enough by Parker yet people want to kiss his *** :mad:

Trelane P
10-02-2008, 08:16 AM
There is an argument that if that deal did not take place then RCA would not today have as big a slice of the profits on album sales and therefore would not have released so much material post 1977. It is because of this deal that RCA can continue to release albums with limited sales beacause their profit on each album is higher than if that deal did not take place. These album releases have helped build the Elvis legacy post 1977.

True of false? Discuss!

ehollier
10-02-2008, 08:44 AM
I agree that RCA continuing to release material post 1977 has help increase Elvis post-death popularity, especially among the many many young fans that were not around while he was alive. There is no argument there. And if RCA owning the post 1973 material has facilitated this process, then this is a pretty good deal for us today, however, the whole crux of the argument seems to come down to the Col. and whether he made this deal in Elvis' best interest at the time in 1973, knowing that he was going to receive 50% of the sale, plus, additional money from RCA for his 'services' after the sale of this music catalogue for years to come.

I think Peter Guralnick's books shows us that it was RCA that approached the Col. about buying the pre-1973 material rather than Col. going to RCA with this idea. There is no way that Col. Parker could have foreseen that Elvis would die so soon and RCA would have a wonderful catalogue of material to use after his death.

Yes, its great for us fans today b/c it has opened up an entire new generation to his wonderful music. I bet we have many many member here who weren't even born when Elvis was alive and they have RCA to thank for releasing so much material. Who here that wasn't around when Elvis was alive would argue that they have enjoyed all of the releases that RCA has put on the market?

No, it wasn't a business decision in Elvis' best interest at the time in 1973 because he was just another example of the Col.'s influence and exploitation of his only client.

KPM
10-02-2008, 12:43 PM
I read Elvis needed extra cash in 75 so Colonel came up with the new years eve show at Poniact Silverdome



3. Maybe that's as high as RCA would go for and so Parker took it
Like I said if thats all RCA would offer-he should have turned it down on the basis of there was only 1 Elvis- IMO if Parker truely believed that he would have not even considered selling this.
Just as there is only 1 Elvis there was only one Beatles.
Beatles publishing rights were 48 million in 84- only 7 years after Elvis's death and are now worth around 400 million.
The returns off of the sale of Elvis's back songs to RCA has to be astronomocal-and will continue to generate profits for years and years.
If Parker at 64 was not looking 20-30 years down the road then he was very shortsighted or had decided he wanted his part "now"..
I talked to a disc jockey in St. Louis at KLOU FM about Elvis and the Beatles a couple years ago and he said,
"they will always sell, they are unique among 99% of all acts"IN 1968 while requesting a song I talked to another disc jockey on KXOK radio (am rock) and he said,
"There is and will always be only 1 Elvis"

Brian
10-02-2008, 01:12 PM
Like I said if thats all RCA would offer-he should have turned it down on the basis of there was only 1 Elvis- IMO if Parker truely believed that he would have not even considered selling this.

If Parker at 64 was not looking 20-30 years down the road then he was very shortsighted or had decided he wanted his part "now"..

"[/I]


I've read Colonel half expected to not live very long past 70 because he had 2 heart attacks in his lifetime before he even met Elvis and this was his way of getting his now. I believe RCA wanted to make the deal regarding the royalties and Elvis needed money at the time so Parker made the deal but I would have tried to get more than 5.4 million, I'ts stated in Guralnicks book that RCA offered only 3 million intially.

ehollier
10-02-2008, 02:51 PM
...........I talked to a disc jockey in St. Louis at KLOU FM about Elvis and the Beatles a couple years ago and he said,
"they will always sell, they are unique among 99% of all acts"IN 1968 while requesting a song I talked to another disc jockey on KXOK radio (am rock) and he said,
"There is and will always be only 1 Elvis"


Truer words were never spoken.

KPM
10-02-2008, 03:25 PM
I've read Colonel half expected to not live very long past 70 because he had 2 heart attacks in his lifetime before he even met Elvis and this was his way of getting his now. I believe RCA wanted to make the deal regarding the royalties and Elvis needed money at the time so Parker made the deal but I would have tried to get more than 5.4 million, I'ts stated in Guralnicks book that RCA offered only 3 million intially.
I would have not even considered selling. IMO I would have contacted Vegas and got another month or even 2 at the Hilton or in Lake Tahoe and got an advance on those months. Col. was a fixture in Vegas and even when Elvis was not at the top of his game he drew SRO crowds to the Showrooms and into the casinos.