PDA

View Full Version : The divorce



MissyM
06-03-2009, 02:19 PM
Why do you think it took Elvis and Priscilla so long to divorce?

Diane
06-03-2009, 02:31 PM
One of them was begging and pleading?:)

Diane

J.P
06-03-2009, 02:33 PM
One of them was begging and pleading?:)

Diane

which one you had on yer mind Diane?:D

debtdbruno
06-03-2009, 02:35 PM
It's generally Solicitors/Attorneys 'trying' to justify their astronomical fees by spinning it out as long as possible:lmfao::lmfao::lmfao::lmfao::lmfao:


Didn't Cilla agree a settlement, and then she changed Attorney and they told her to go for more money:doh::doh::doh:

Deb

epmoodyblue
06-03-2009, 02:36 PM
like in every divorce when theres alot of http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e160/selenauno/th_arguement.giftakes time to get one

Diane
06-03-2009, 02:41 PM
which one you had on yer mind Diane?:D

I'm keeping that one to myself J.P:)

Diane

J.P
06-03-2009, 02:54 PM
I'm keeping that one to myself J.P:)

Diane

:lmfao::lmfao::lmfao: good answer (y);)

debtdbruno
06-03-2009, 02:55 PM
like in every divorce when theres alot of http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e160/selenauno/th_arguement.giftakes time to get one


M ex spun our divorce out to 4 years. Cost a fortune, and lots of unneccessary heartache and aggrivation.



Deb

Merry
06-03-2009, 03:14 PM
M ex spun our divorce out to 4 years. Cost a fortune, and lots of unneccessary heartache and aggrivation.



Deb


The lawyers, of course, should say:

File for Divorce straight away, then the other party has to settle within the year.

Of course, why would the lawyers say that!!! :angry::angry::angry:

Trelane P
06-03-2009, 04:04 PM
Interesting that cilla asked for a larger settlement causing elvis to sell his royalties to RCA in 1973 for quick cash. Ironically this now means she doesn't now receive as much from record sales now. An own goal?

presley31
06-03-2009, 04:15 PM
l really don't know alot about divorce but l'am guessing maybe they had to come to some kind of agreements but l know my self separting my from ex cost alot in lawyers and than coming to agreements in court when there is kids involved takes quite along time.

utmom2008
06-03-2009, 04:19 PM
Interesting that cilla asked for a larger settlement causing elvis to sell his royalties to RCA in 1973 for quick cash. Ironically this now means she doesn't now receive as much from record sales now. An own goal?

Actually, it's Lisa who doesn't receive as much money from the record sales. In an odd way, she cheated her daughter out of future income.http://smiley.net.ru/talnno054.gif (http://smiley.net.ru/talnno2.htm)

Trelane P
06-03-2009, 04:53 PM
Actually, it's Lisa who doesn't receive as much money from the record sales. In an odd way, she cheated her daughter out of future income.http://smiley.net.ru/talnno054.gif (http://smiley.net.ru/talnno2.htm)

You're right. Must have seemed like a good move for cilla at the time but she indirectly cost lisa a fortune.

molokai123
06-03-2009, 05:36 PM
like in every divorce when theres alot of http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e160/selenauno/th_arguement.giftakes time to get one

yep,it takes time

May
06-04-2009, 01:26 AM
It seems to all be over very quickly these days. Back then maybe things just took longer. I guess it wasnt that long though, they separated in 72 and divorced 73. As I understood it, Elvis said Priscilla could have whatever she wanted. Priscilla didnt ask for a lot (moneywise) and then realised her mistake and changed her demands.

MissyM
06-04-2009, 05:51 AM
They separated in Sept. of 71, she filed for a legal separation in 72. And the divorce was final in 73.
I guess it just goes against all she says about how they were such great friends after they weren't togeather anymore. It seems contrary to her saying she visited and they talked all the time. And if was a friendly divorce. At what point did it get "friendly".
Doesn't seem like much is said about their interaction during this period.
Was Elvis prolonging the divorce hoping she'd come back or because he was ticked off about Stone? Was it just hard to go throught the process because he hated divorce?? Was it about her manipulating the situation to get more money??

May
06-04-2009, 06:01 AM
From what Ive read, there was a period where it was acrimonious (as all divorces), but when Priscilla says it was amicable, I think that after all the 'nastiness' that comes with any break up, it turned out a lot better than most people divorcing. Probably mainly due to keeping things nice for Lisa.

Donut
06-04-2009, 06:16 AM
Did Lisa stay at Graceland regularly during that period of time?

May
06-04-2009, 09:45 AM
Wasnt there some reports that Priscilla didnt let Lisa visit as much as Elvis wanted until she got her settlement ?

Donut
06-04-2009, 10:32 AM
I have heard it too. That's why I asked May to know if that's true. :hmm:

Teddy
06-04-2009, 10:40 AM
You're right. Must have seemed like a good move for cilla at the time but she indirectly cost lisa a fortune.

I'm sure Elvis's compulsive spending habits presented a far more conspicuous threat to Lisa's future inheritance at the time.

Brian
06-04-2009, 11:12 AM
Elvis divorce didn't take that long compared to many other divorces

for example Lee Majors and Farrah Fawcett were separated for 4 years before they divorced and that's just one example.

May
06-04-2009, 11:31 AM
A lot of people dont want to rush it. They stay separated and then take their time deciding if its the right thing to do. which I think is the mature thing to do.

May
06-04-2009, 11:33 AM
I have heard it too. That's why I asked May to know if that's true. :hmm:

There have been many many stories around that subject. A lot of people dismiss it, but another lot of people say it was true. Again, like most of the stories, we will never know. there are some who believe she did that, and some who "know" she didnt.:rolleyes::rolleyes: Depends on who you want to believe I guess.:blink:

KPM
06-04-2009, 11:38 AM
Interesting that cilla asked for a larger settlement causing elvis to sell his royalties to RCA in 1973 for quick cash. Ironically this now means she doesn't now receive as much from record sales now. An own goal?
There had to be plenty of ways to raise cash for ELVIS PRESLEY in 1973 other than the deal the Col. got from RCA it was the worst move the Col. ever negotiated-and the worst one Elvis ever agreed to with little real question.
I do not blame Priscilla as much as I blame Parker and Elvis for taking the quick deal that RCA had to know was worth millions in the future. I mean Elvis did not have to sell the assets-he could have went several ways to get the money-negotiating a deal with RCA for a large royaltee advance for instance-using the back catalogue as collateral might have been the smarter move. I mean Elvis was buying planes during this time and had little trouble doing so-which shows he was credit worthy.

KPM
06-04-2009, 12:03 PM
They separated in Sept. of 71, she filed for a legal separation in 72. And the divorce was final in 73.
I guess it just goes against all she says about how they were such great friends after they weren't togeather anymore. It seems contrary to her saying she visited and they talked all the time. And if was a friendly divorce. At what point did it get "friendly".
Doesn't seem like much is said about their interaction during this period.
Was Elvis prolonging the divorce hoping she'd come back or because he was ticked off about Stone? Was it just hard to go throught the process because he hated divorce?? Was it about her manipulating the situation to get more money??
I'm sure they had a very hard few years getting together-even friendly "on the surface" divorces still hold pain, anger, some resentment etc...I really don't think anyone can go thru a divorce and not feel failure also.
As far as Priscilla manipulating the situation-in "Careless Love" Guralnick comments that,
"the settlement on the face of it was clearly one sided for a man of such wealth to pay $100,000 in a state where community property was the rule-and for both parties to be represented in essence by the husbands lawyer was patently unfair"
Hookstratten should have recommended that she get her own lawyer to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest-instead he claimed she agreed to everything in the original divorce settlement.
So the question is how much did Hookstratten actually inform Priscilla about when it comes to the community settlement and what she was intitled to by that law in California. If he had told her get your own lawyer, "to make this fair and above question" it would have been the smarter, shorter and more fair route to take.
So in not recommending Priscilla seek her own counsel-was there manipulation on Hookstrattens part? At the least it surely looks like conflict of interest. So manipulation may have worked both ways.

May
06-04-2009, 01:04 PM
Why would Hookstratten manipulate Priscilla and her settlement? Elvis didnt put any restrictions on what Priscilla got. What would his lawyer get out of it if he offered Priscilla a lot less than was fair?

KPM
06-04-2009, 05:24 PM
Why would Hookstratten manipulate Priscilla and her settlement? Elvis didnt put any restrictions on what Priscilla got. What would his lawyer get out of it if he offered Priscilla a lot less than was fair?
I'm not sure Hookstratten tried to take advantage of Priscilla-but it is a given that in most high profile divorces-each have a lawyer.
Hookstatten as Elvis's personal attorney of retainer would seemingly be looking out for Elvis and his interests first, by nature of the long term association-which is exactly why he should have recommended she get independent counsel. Now in hindsight it seems had Hookstratten done so-this idea of manipulation by either party would not even come up. Which was my point.

MissyM
06-04-2009, 08:18 PM
Well she did get more than money. And from what I've read, by the standards even for wealthy stars,(of that time period) her's was one of the biggest ever.

Brian
06-04-2009, 09:54 PM
Well she did get more than money. And from what I've read, by the standards even for wealthy stars,(of that time period) her's was one of the biggest ever.

I think she got 2 million dollars plus child support
half of the sale price of the house in L.A. and 5% ownership in one of Elvis publishing companies.

If I were Elvis I would've gave Priscilla a millon dollars more instead of agreeing to give her 5% in one of my publishing companies.

Brian
06-04-2009, 11:01 PM
I'm not sure Hookstratten tried to take advantage of Priscilla-but it is a given that in most high profile divorces-each have a lawyer.
Hookstatten as Elvis's personal attorney of retainer would seemingly be looking out for Elvis and his interests first, by nature of the long term association-which is exactly why he should have recommended she get independent counsel. Now in hindsight it seems had Hookstratten done so-this idea of manipulation by either party would not even come up. Which was my point.

I think Priscilla just should've gotten her own attorney in the very begining with or without Hookstratten's advice it was the logical thing to do.

I've never heard of the same lawyer representing both people in a divorce case before.

May
06-05-2009, 01:22 AM
I agree Brian.

I suppose we should remember though that from her late teens, Priscilla lived with Elvis and his entourage and therefore didnt do the 'normal' growing up each of us do, and relied on Elvis for everything. Although you would imagine common sense would tell her divorce isnt something your husband helps you with!!!

cbg84
06-05-2009, 01:50 PM
I don't doubt that Elvis and Priscilla became friends after the divorce seeing how not only does Priscilla say it but Lisa did and severals other that were around at the time as I've heard Elvis say they were friends. I believe that there was probably a time to begin with that it wasn't that way but I believe that they were as time went on.

May
06-05-2009, 01:59 PM
I'm sure Elvis's compulsive spending habits presented a far more conspicuous threat to Lisa's future inheritance at the time.

Oh yes, how dare Elvis spend the money he himself earnt!! :blink:

utmom2008
06-05-2009, 02:03 PM
I don't doubt that Elvis and Priscilla became friends after the divorce seeing how not only does Priscilla say it but Lisa did and severals other that were around at the time as I've heard Elvis say they were friends.

I would guess that their friendship was built entirely around sharing a child, it's best to be civil and friendly in those situations. I doubt that they were phone buddies, or telling each other stories and such, like you would with a "normal" friend.
http://smiley.net.ru/bigoth0329.gif (http://smiley.net.ru/bigoth10.htm)

Elvis Girl
06-05-2009, 02:03 PM
uhm they either took there time or it was cause of lawyers.
more than likely it was the lawyers involvement in it in some way.
but. if u look at it wasn't really a long divorce thou.

Brian
06-05-2009, 02:16 PM
I would guess that their friendship was built entirely around sharing a child, it's best to be civil and friendly in those situations. I doubt that they were phone buddies, or telling each other stories and such, like you would with a "normal" friend.
http://smiley.net.ru/bigoth0329.gif (http://smiley.net.ru/bigoth10.htm)

Priscilla say they were phone buddies and were best friends

How can you not believe Priscilla

utmom2008
06-05-2009, 02:21 PM
Priscilla say they were phone buddies and were best friends

How can you not believe Priscilla

Actually....it's quite easy!!!!http://smiley.net.ru/bigoth0449.gif (http://smiley.net.ru/bigoth13.htm)

TotallyInsane
06-05-2009, 05:54 PM
:angry::angry::angry::angry:

utmom2008
06-05-2009, 08:57 PM
http://smiley.net.ru/emorag160.gif (http://smiley.net.ru/emorag5.htm)


:angry::angry::angry::angry:

What on earth are the two of you so mad about???? Did I miss something?:supriced::supriced:

Donut
06-06-2009, 04:50 AM
Oh yes, how dare Elvis spend the money he himself earnt!! :blink:

Plus it's not like he left his ex-wife and child living in the street after the divorce either. She got a lot of money and it's not fair to hold only Elvis responsible for the future of their mutual child.

Donut
06-06-2009, 05:41 AM
Was Elvis prolonging the divorce hoping she'd come back or because he was ticked off about Stone? Was it just hard to go throught the process because he hated divorce?? Was it about her manipulating the situation to get more money??

If I remember correctly Elvis got shared custody of Lisa with the final settlement. It seems that like in most divorces it was used as a way to get what you want from the other part involved. Maybe that got something to do with that. Why didn't he get it from the beginning? Wasn't Elvis interested or Priscilla didn't want it that way?

Brian
06-06-2009, 10:42 AM
Plus it's not like he left his ex-wife and child living in the street after the divorce either. She got a lot of money and it's not fair to hold only Elvis responsible for the future of their mutual child.

correct

Priscilla was on those Amazing Animals
Priscilla was on Dallas for five years and she also got the female lead in the successful Naked Gun films you never hear if Priscilla put any of that money away that she made off of those things for Lisa after all the trust wasn't opened until Lisa was 25. All you hear about is how much Elvis is worth or how much he left Lisa etc.

utmom2008
06-06-2009, 11:35 AM
correct

Priscilla was on those Amazing Animals
Priscilla was on Dallas for five years and she also got the female lead in the successful Naked Gun films you never hear if Priscilla put any of that money away that she made off of those things for Lisa after all the trust wasn't opened until Lisa was 25. All you hear about is how much Elvis is worth or how much he left Lisa etc.

Great points Brian!http://smiley.net.ru/talyes012.gif (http://smiley.net.ru/talyes1.htm)

debtdbruno
06-06-2009, 11:53 AM
She can't be short of a 'bob or two' in her own right

Deb

Donut
06-06-2009, 03:33 PM
All you hear about is how much Elvis is worth or how much he left Lisa etc.

And that's pretty disgusting in my opinion. He did and gave enough during his life and as far as I know his ex-wife and daughter have two arms and two legs to make a living by theirselves.

MissyM
06-06-2009, 04:19 PM
Great point, wasn't that the whole idea of the settlement and her using his name again?? Shees, how many millions does one need??? Well, she didn't like the way he spent it when she was married to him either.

hannaloveselvis
06-08-2009, 01:18 AM
Why do you think it took Elvis and Priscilla so long to divorce?

They still cared for each other and had a great love for each other. But couldn't have their cake and eat it too.

(P.S. I'm not that big of a Priscilla fan. But I do believe that they did have a true love for each other and Elvis loved her most of all.)

Teddy
06-08-2009, 01:32 AM
... his ex-wife and daughter have two arms and two legs to make a living by theirselves.
You've really missed your calling as a Divorce Lawyer, Cake :lol:

Donut
06-08-2009, 02:39 AM
Missed? It's never too late, Bear http://smiley.net.ru/emooth224.gif (http://smiley.net.ru/emooth7.htm)

debtdbruno
06-08-2009, 04:06 AM
You've really missed your calling as a Divorce Lawyer, Cake :lol:


:lmfao::lmfao::lmfao::lmfao::lmfao::lmfao::lmfao:: lmfao:

utmom2008
06-08-2009, 10:20 AM
He did and gave enough during his life and as far as I know his ex-wife and daughter have two arms and two legs to make a living by theirselves.


You've really missed your calling as a Divorce Lawyer, Cake :lol:

I'll hire Donut for MY side!:lmfao::lmfao:

KPM
06-11-2009, 01:37 PM
Great point, wasn't that the whole idea of the settlement and her using his name again?? Shees, how many millions does one need??? Well, she didn't like the way he spent it when she was married to him either.

Well how many millions one needs depends on the person, situation, wealth of the deceased, standard of living etc...... I would be happy with just a single solitary million (even a half million) the lifestyle my wife and I have would need little more than that:)
But its all relative-as I pointed out Lisa was use to diamond rings, plane trips on a whim, flying to concerts, rented funparks, mink coats, etc......that is a very extravagent upbrining-by all accounts he spoiled her and he also gave Priscilla during their marriage what ever she wanted-expensive jewelry, expensive trips, homes etc....its all relative.
But I would gladly take the half million if anyone is handing it out:D;)

utmom2008
06-11-2009, 01:43 PM
Well how many millions one needs depends on the person, situation, wealth of the deceased, standard of living etc......

I can't remember where, but I either read or heard somewhere that Lisa requires 7 million dollars a year just to "get by on."
http://smiley.net.ru/bigoth0041.gif (http://smiley.net.ru/bigoth2.htm)

KPM
06-11-2009, 01:45 PM
I can't remember where, but I either read or heard somewhere that Lisa requires 7 million dollars a year just to "get by on."
http://smiley.net.ru/bigoth0041.gif (http://smiley.net.ru/bigoth2.htm)
I wonder if she could get by on 6 1/2 million this next year and make me happy:lol:

debtdbruno
06-11-2009, 02:15 PM
I can't remember where, but I either read or heard somewhere that Lisa requires 7 million dollars a year just to "get by on."
http://smiley.net.ru/bigoth0041.gif (http://smiley.net.ru/bigoth2.htm)

Celebs live on another planet to us ordinary mortals

Deb

May
06-16-2009, 05:40 AM
I can't remember where, but I either read or heard somewhere that Lisa requires 7 million dollars a year just to "get by on."
http://smiley.net.ru/bigoth0041.gif (http://smiley.net.ru/bigoth2.htm)

You're kidding, right?:jawdrop:

Diane
06-16-2009, 06:36 AM
You're kidding, right?:jawdrop:

No she's not kidding. I read that somewhere too. :)

Diane

Teddy
06-16-2009, 07:57 AM
Isn't it adorable the way that wealthy people want you to feel like they're struggling to scrape through, just because they have to find a vast sum of money each year to cover the taxes on their obscene amount of property?
http://smiley.net.ru/misanm0169.gif (http://smiley.net.ru/misanm5.htm)

May
06-16-2009, 12:04 PM
Adorable isnt quite the word I would use Teddy.

Stryx
06-17-2009, 11:41 AM
Don't forget he had to do that deal with RCA to raise some cash to pay Priscilla off.

Elvis was wealthy but spent most of his liquid assests as soon he got them.

debtdbruno
06-17-2009, 11:52 AM
That is sacrilage to think he sold all his music rights to pay for his divorce settlement.
The Colonel wanted his ears boxing for that alone.

Deb

Brian
06-17-2009, 12:06 PM
You're kidding, right?:jawdrop:

When you make 40 million a year spending 7 mil a year is nothing.

Stryx
06-17-2009, 01:51 PM
That is sacrilage to think he sold all his music rights to pay for his divorce settlement.
The Colonel wanted his ears boxing for that alone.

Deb


Yeah Colonel actually took more money out of that deal than Elvis did and out of Elvis's share he had to give a considerable portion over to Priscilla.

It's strange in a way though as it is Lisa ( thier daughter ) and Lisa's kids ( their grandkids ) who now cannot enjoy the fruits of lofty royalty payments.

debtdbruno
06-17-2009, 02:09 PM
Yeah Colonel actually took more money out of that deal than Elvis did and out of Elvis's share he had to give a considerable portion over to Priscilla.

It's strange in a way though as it is Lisa ( thier daughter ) and Lisa's kids ( their grandkids ) who now cannot enjoy the fruits of lofty royalty payments.

What goes around, comes around!!!!!

Didn't Elvis pay the Colonels' tax out of his share?

Jumpsuit Junkie
06-17-2009, 03:11 PM
There had to be plenty of ways to raise cash for ELVIS PRESLEY in 1973 other than the deal the Col. got from RCA it was the worst move the Col. ever negotiated-and the worst one Elvis ever agreed to with little real question.
I do not blame Priscilla as much as I blame Parker and Elvis for taking the quick deal that RCA had to know was worth millions in the future. I mean Elvis did not have to sell the assets-he could have went several ways to get the money-negotiating a deal with RCA for a large royaltee advance for instance-using the back catalogue as collateral might have been the smarter move. I mean Elvis was buying planes during this time and had little trouble doing so-which shows he was credit worthy.

Excellent points, Elvis was surely good for some credit from the bank, especially in 1973, Elvis was at the height of his Jumpsuit fame!


Well how many millions one needs depends on the person, situation, wealth of the deceased, standard of living etc...... I would be happy with just a single solitary million (even a half million) the lifestyle my wife and I have would need little more than that:)
But its all relative-as I pointed out Lisa was use to diamond rings, plane trips on a whim, flying to concerts, rented funparks, mink coats, etc......that is a very extravagent upbrining-by all accounts he spoiled her and he also gave Priscilla during their marriage what ever she wanted-expensive jewelry, expensive trips, homes etc....its all relative.
But I would gladly take the half million if anyone is handing it out:D;)

I once watched a programme about Tom Cruise, the programme detailed all of his expenditure.. Nannies, cooks, cars, limo's top of the range gadgets, staying in the best hotels in the world & of course the obligatory entourage that follow these guys e.g. publicists, agents & bodyguards. All of this doesn't come cheap. It was estimated that he needed to earn 7 million per year just to break even. I guess it brings new meaning the the phrase 'Running To Stand Still' :supriced:

utmom2008
06-17-2009, 04:41 PM
I once watched a programme about Tom Cruise, the programme detailed all of his expenditure.. Nannies, cooks, cars, limo's top of the range gadgets, staying in the best hotels in the world & of course the obligatory entourage that follow these guys e.g. publicists, agents & bodyguards. All of this doesn't come cheap. It was estimated that he needed to earn 7 million per year just to break even. I guess it brings new meaning the the phrase 'Running To Stand Still' :supriced:

And you left out the cost of repairing all the couches he jumped around on
in his quest to make us realize that "Kate" was the love of his life. :lol:
http://smiley.net.ru/bigoth0706.gif (http://smiley.net.ru/bigoth21.htm)

Teddy
06-17-2009, 04:52 PM
Hey, did you steal one of my Temptations? :mad:

utmom2008
06-17-2009, 04:55 PM
Hey, did you steal one of my Temptations? :mad:

:lol: Yeh, he's moonlighting. With the economy in such bad shape he needed some extra $$$$.
http://smiley.net.ru/bigoth0067.gif (http://smiley.net.ru/bigoth2.htm)

Teddy
06-17-2009, 05:01 PM
He's so fired :mad:

utmom2008
06-17-2009, 05:10 PM
He's so fired :mad:
But so replaceable.....

http://smiley.net.ru/bigoth0416.gif (http://smiley.net.ru/bigoth12.htm) http://smiley.net.ru/bigoth0539.gif (http://smiley.net.ru/bigoth16.htm)

Jumpsuit Junkie
06-17-2009, 11:30 PM
And you left out the cost of repairing all the couches he jumped around on
in his quest to make us realize that "Kate" was the love of his life. :lol:
http://smiley.net.ru/bigoth0706.gif (http://smiley.net.ru/bigoth21.htm)

That's a cool million right there lol, it certainly harmed his career :lol:

Teddy
06-18-2009, 01:23 AM
I'm very much with Ken on the RCA catalogue deal stuff.
It's absurd to blame Cilla or the divorce for what is essentially Elvis and the Colonel's naivety and bungled business.
Parker was the King of the fast buck but it made him short-sighted. Bear in mind that this deal isn't the only example we have of the Colonel roping Elvis into a situation which might have seemed lucrative on the day but had suffocating long-term consequences.

jak
06-18-2009, 03:31 AM
The RCA deal was a major blunder by Parker and Presley.Parker should have known better.He certainly let Elvis down on this one.Elvis is not without blame either though.He embraced the deal.He even bragged about it.Elvis lived for the moment and was very shortsighted when it came to his future.The promise of a fast buck was to hard to resist.The divorce had nothing to do with it.Elvis' finances were starting to get into trouble at this point.

Teddy
06-18-2009, 03:41 AM
Exactly :cheers::respect:

May
06-18-2009, 03:45 AM
When you make 40 million a year spending 7 mil a year is nothing.

It is more the fact that she said it, implying $7m isn't that much money, and that she 'scrapes by':blink: Oh to be the daughter of Elvis!

Stryx
06-18-2009, 05:50 AM
Very well said.

Elvis however did use some of the money he got from the deal for the divorce.


The RCA deal was a major blunder by Parker and Presley.Parker should have known better.He certainly let Elvis down on this one.Elvis is not without blame either though.He embraced the deal.He even bragged about it.Elvis lived for the moment and was very shortsighted when it came to his future.The promise of a fast buck was to hard to resist.The divorce had nothing to do with it.Elvis' finances were starting to get into trouble at this point.

jak
06-18-2009, 08:36 AM
Very well said.

Elvis however did use some of the money he got from the deal for the divorce.

That is true.It's just around this point in his life that his lack of financial planning was starting to take it's toll in general.Elvis had lots of money going out to keep Graceland going along with his payroll etc.Touring had become his main source of income.His record sales and merchandising revenues were not what they use to be.He really was strapped for cash as crazy as that sounds.

May
06-18-2009, 10:42 AM
Elvis was wealthy but spent most of his liquid assests as soon he got them.

and good for him, I say. (y) You can't take it with you.

Brian
06-18-2009, 10:43 AM
The RCA deal was a major blunder by Parker and Presley.Parker should have known better.He certainly let Elvis down on this one.Elvis is not without blame either though.He embraced the deal.He even bragged about it.Elvis lived for the moment and was very shortsighted when it came to his future.The promise of a fast buck was to hard to resist.The divorce had nothing to do with it.Elvis' finances were starting to get into trouble at this point.

According to Parker he advised Elvis not to make the deal but he wanted it done so he made the deal.

Donut
06-18-2009, 10:56 AM
and good for him, I say. (y) You can't take it with you.

(y)(y)(y)(y)

Stryx
06-18-2009, 11:32 AM
Yeah and Elvis also signed a trust deed to Graceland over to Priscilla in 1977 as he owed her in the region of $400,000.

It was money he still owed her for child support and other things following the divorce.

The RCA deal was supposed to take care of it, that was supposedly the reason it was done but Parker ended up with more of the money than Elvis did plus taxes had to be paid.

The trust deed was in '77 because she demanded her money and that's the only way he thought he had to give it to her.



That is true.It's just around this point in his life that his lack of financial planning was starting to take it's toll in general.Elvis had lots of money going out to keep Graceland going along with his payroll etc.Touring had become his main source of income.His record sales and merchandising revenues were not what they use to be.He really was strapped for cash as crazy as that sounds.

debtdbruno
06-18-2009, 11:39 AM
Absolutely amazing that he could earn so much, but be in such a financial predicament

May
06-18-2009, 11:46 AM
According to Parker he advised Elvis not to make the deal but he wanted it done so he made the deal.

Wouldnt believe a word Col Parker said!!

Brian
06-18-2009, 12:01 PM
Wouldnt believe a word Col Parker said!!


For some reason I do Elvis was really happy about this deal even bragging about it as Jerry Schilling mentions in his book

its not like Parker came up with this deal and Elvis just went along with it but really didn't want to do it like he did certain other times.

people make decisions in life good and bad and you have to live with them

If I were Parker however I would've set up a stadium tour but don't think Elvis was interested in playing stadiums so that might've been the reason this deal was ultimately made.

Brian
06-18-2009, 12:07 PM
Yeah and Elvis also signed a trust deed to Graceland over to Priscilla in 1977 as he owed her in the region of $400,000.

It was money he still owed her for child support and other things following the divorce.

The RCA deal was supposed to take care of it, that was supposedly the reason it was done but Parker ended up with more of the money than Elvis did plus taxes had to be paid.

The trust deed was in '77 because she demanded her money and that's the only way he thought he had to give it to her.

no wonder Elvis talked about getting back together with Priscilla

it certainly would've been a lot cheaper!!!

_waitinformyelvis_
06-18-2009, 12:15 PM
One of them was begging and pleading?:)

Diane

Which one do you think it was?? I don't think it was Elvis....
:hmm:
lol

KPM
06-18-2009, 02:07 PM
The RCA deal was a major blunder by Parker and Presley.Parker known betshould have ter.He certainly let Elvis down on this one.Elvis is not without blame either though.He embraced the deal.He even bragged about it.Elvis lived for the moment and was very shortsighted when it came to his future.The promise of a fast buck was to hard to resist.The divorce had nothing to do with it.Elvis' finances were starting to get into trouble at this point.
Yes Parker being the businessman of the 2 should have known better.
Parker had to lay the deal out to Elvis in order to get him to sign the papers-and I would not doubt that the "Snowman" explained it to him in glowing terms as to the benefits-downplaying the downside.
If Parker "did not realise the blunder"-then he definitely had slipped bigtime.
But surely Parker of all people had to realise the huge downside to the deal and the huge upside for RCA.

debtdbruno
06-18-2009, 02:12 PM
Comes back to the same thing, not looking at the big picture, or long term implications!!!
All about the immediate $$$$$$$$$$

Deb

Brian
06-18-2009, 03:56 PM
Yes Parker being the businessman of the 2 should have known better.
Parker had to lay the deal out to Elvis in order to get him to sign the papers-and I would not doubt that the "Snowman" explained it to him in glowing terms as to the benefits-downplaying the downside.
If Parker "did not realise the blunder"-then he definitely had slipped bigtime.
But surely Parker of all people had to realise the huge downside to the deal and the huge upside for RCA.

I don't know if Parker would've went through with the deal if he would've known Elvis would died in 4 years and shows like Happy Days were going to premiere regardless of whether Elvis wanted the deal to happen.

KPM
06-20-2009, 02:37 PM
I don't know if Parker would've went through with the deal if he would've known Elvis would died in 4 years and shows like Happy Days were going to premiere regardless of whether Elvis wanted the deal to happen.
RCA did not know that Elvis would die in 4 years, nor that "Happy Days" would go on in 74-but someone had the brainstorm that " these Elvis recordings would always have value"-not just after he died nor when there was a resurgence of 50s style music-but always.
Just as Sinatra recordings are always going to be of value, Beatles recordings are, etc................So if Parker did not see the value of these recordings -then RCA surely outfoxed him, out thought him on the issue of their worth.
If Parker did understand the worth of these recordings and made the deal-to me that is even worse.
I had a disc jockey a couple years ago tell me that "Elvis would always sell"
not like the explosive periods of his career-but he would always sell.
RCA can churns out the reissues and reaps untold profits as long as.................................... people listen to music.
Sure they will not have huge millions sellers with every release-don't need them- each record can turn a profit- overhead is next to nothing when you pay no royaltees. IMO its just a horrible horrible deal for someone who was suppose to be so savvy about such things. Elvis was not the business man, not the entertainment management wiz-that was suppose to be Parkers territory.

Brian
06-20-2009, 07:15 PM
RCA did not know that Elvis would die in 4 years, nor that "Happy Days" would go on in 74-but someone had the brainstorm that " these Elvis recordings would always have value"-not just after he died nor when there was a resurgence of 50s style music-but always.
Just as Sinatra recordings are always going to be of value, Beatles recordings are, etc................So if Parker did not see the value of these recordings -then RCA surely outfoxed him, out thought him on the issue of their worth.
If Parker did understand the worth of these recordings and made the deal-to me that is even worse.
.

I think Parker went for because he was an old man who thought he wasn't going to be around much longer and he thought Elvis best days were behind him so he made the deal.

Jumpsuit Junkie
06-21-2009, 03:01 AM
I think Parker went for because he was an old man who thought he wasn't going to be around much longer and he thought Elvis best days were behind him so he made the deal.

Good points, Parker was also a habitual gambler who needed money for his addiction also he was privy to what Elvis was doing behind closed doors and perhaps thought he could get this past Elvis?

debtdbruno
06-21-2009, 04:09 AM
Good points, Parker was also a habitual gambler who needed money for his addiction also he was privy to what Elvis was doing behind closed doors and perhaps thought he could get this past Elvis?

Bingo!!!!!!(y)(y)

TotallyInsane
06-21-2009, 05:59 AM
It is more the fact that she said it, implying $7m isn't that much money, and that she 'scrapes by':blink: Oh to be the daughter of Elvis!

Actually she's not the one that said it - someone said it about her.

May
06-21-2009, 12:57 PM
Well, It doesn't really matter who said it. I was responding to what was said,

KPM
06-22-2009, 11:45 AM
I think Parker went for because he was an old man who thought he wasn't going to be around much longer and he thought Elvis best days were behind him so he made the deal.
So if you are correct that Parker felt he was old and not going to be around much longer-then in this instance he acted in his own behalf and benefit-not in Elvis's.

Brian
06-22-2009, 11:55 AM
So if you are correct that Parker felt he was old and not going to be around much longer-then in this instance he acted in his own behalf and benefit-not in Elvis's.

yes, and Elvis liked the deal and went along with it because it was a lot of money and he didn't have to do any work to get it.

Parker acted in his best interest instead of Elvis' many times.

KPM
06-22-2009, 12:17 PM
yes, and Elvis liked the deal and went along with it because it was a lot of money and he didn't have to do any work to get it.

Parker acted in his best interest instead of Elvis' many times.
Elvis liked the deal-as it was explained to him-I will agree on that.
If Parker knew that it was truely an unsmart business deal for Elvis-he would not have come clean to Elvis and said-
"listen this is not the way to go, these songs will always sell lets look elsewhere"
-instead he would have said-
"These songs are old and not worth much-lets take the deal" and Elvis would feel (and brag) what a great deal he had just signed on for.
RCA knew they were a mint just waiting to be mined.

MissyM
06-23-2009, 06:11 AM
After Elvis died and the estate was settled, the trust brought in about 7-10 million in two years. The inheritance tax was deferred. It may have cost 500,00 for upkeep of Graceland, but all songs/movies and ect. published (Elvis recordings) and Elvis memorabilia was still bringing in cash. That was the reason for the lawsuits that Factor/Boxcar launched. They didn't want anyone else to make money off of Elvis's name. Then there was have the sale of the Lisa Marie and the Houndog, that brought in money.
Priscilla may have deferred being paid the other half of her settlement at the time of the estate settling, therefore when Vernon got sick she was put on as executor for that reason. The house was owned by the trust and she held the cards. By having her named as a person on the deed, did she own part of it? Or did the trust just owe her??
Who knows.

jasmine123456
06-23-2009, 06:22 AM
After Elvis died and the estate was settled, the trust brought in about 7-10 million in two years. The inheritance tax was deferred. It may have cost 500,00 for upkeep of Graceland, but all songs/movies and ect. published (Elvis recordings) and Elvis memorabilia was still bringing in cash. That was the reason for the lawsuits that Factor/Boxcar launched. They didn't want anyone else to make money off of Elvis's name. Then there was have the sale of the Lisa Marie and the Houndog, that brought in money.
Priscilla may have deferred being paid the other half of her settlement at the time of the estate settling, therefore when Vernon got sick she was put on as executor for that reason. The house was owned by the trust and she held the cards. By having her named as a person on the deed, did she own part of it? Or did the trust just owe her??
Who knows.

ii don't care about any of these, ;),just feel sorry for my poor, silly, sweet Elvis.
but at least he got me, :-)

KPM
06-23-2009, 09:06 AM
After Elvis died and the estate was settled, the trust brought in about 7-10 million in two years. The inheritance tax was deferred. It may have cost 500,00 for upkeep of Graceland, but all songs/movies and ect. published (Elvis recordings) and Elvis memorabilia was still bringing in cash. That was the reason for the lawsuits that Factor/Boxcar launched. They didn't want anyone else to make money off of Elvis's name. Then there was have the sale of the Lisa Marie and the Houndog, that brought in money.
Priscilla may have deferred being paid the other half of her settlement at the time of the estate settling, therefore when Vernon got sick she was put on as executor for that reason. The house was owned by the trust and she held the cards. By having her named as a person on the deed, did she own part of it? Or did the trust just owe her??
Who knows.
The trust ruled-even if Priscilla did not get her other half of her settlement yet- she would just be another debt on the estate to be eventualy paid (even as one of the executors).
The first 2 years after Elvis died were extraordinary as far as income-mainly because of his death and the rush to buy things associated with him -by 1980 that had subsided some.
But the estate got nothing for the movies (don't own them), nor for RCA Pre 73 recorded records sold during that 2 years(which was a considerable amount) .......but Elvis's publishing and the memorabilia were the cash cows for the estate during that 2 year time frame.

RCA sued to find out who to pay the $152,354.14 in royaltees it was withholding, "All Star Shows" (Parker) or the estate mainly because the Probate Court had ordered that no further monies be paid to Parker until the deals had been investigated:


http://www.preslaw.net/rcarecordsvhanks.pdf
RCA Records v. Hanks(Priscilla Presley as co-executor of Elvis' Estate, Blanchard E. Tual, Jr. (Lisa Marie Presley's Guardian Ad Litem), and Elvis' ex-manager, "Colonel" Tom Parker co-defendants)548 F. Supp. 979 (S.D.N.Y., Sep 16, 1982)Overview: RCA Records brought interpleader action to determine who was the rightful owner of certain royalties due under its agreement with Elvis Presley. The case deals with a great variety of Federal Civil Procedure Rules and Interpleader issues including Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Personal Jurisdiction, Venue and Transfer - a great Civ Pro primer!The Estate and Lisa Marie's Guardian Ad Litem