The Ledge

The Ledge (http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/index.php)
-   Rumours (http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Lindsey Buckingham's complaint against FM - Filed 10/9/18 in Los Angeles - document (http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=58199)

rhiannondontgo 10-12-2018 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saniette (Post 1240459)
A lot of the dysfunction has been exaggerated in this band, and sold as part of the brand. I don't really buy into the myth. There has to be some camaraderie between the band members to function at all, even if it's just on a professional level, and there are moments you can see that even in the ways they interact on stage.

Anyway, none of this explains why Lindsey was fired. He wasn't fired for money reasons, and it would have been cheaper to keep Lindsey in the band. So clearly FM is not run like a standard corporation.

And don't feelings come into play after all? Didn't Stevie's feelings end up trumping all the business considerations? Lindsey was fired due to Stevie feeling fed up with him for whatever the reason is. So I think feelings definitely played a role in Lindsey's firing, not money considerations. Now, of course, it's all about the money, as it is at the dissolution of most relationships. That doesn't negate that feelings are involved.

I disagree. Lindsey’s firing absolutely came about due to money. Unless there’s a lot more to the story than we know, it doesn’t sound like the whole band had hurt feelings. Only Stevie. Why are Stevie’s feelings dictating the band? Because of the money. When Stevie didn’t want the album to be named Tusk by Mick & Linds, she didn’t get her way. When Stevie didn’t want to listen to Lindsey & the photographer about taking off her top for the cover of BN, she didn’t get her way. When she had a problem with them doing Come live, she didn’t get her way. Her “feelings” then were not any more valued than Lindsey’s are now. Right now it’s her monetary value dictating these decisions, not consideration for her feelings. She isn’t just complaining anymore, she’s saying flat out that she does not want to be around Lindsey Buckingham at all. The band knew they had a tour already planned out, promoters all ready, and fans excited. And now the “face” of the band was threatening to refuse to participate. Yeah FM could’ve just disbanded all together, but that would equal no money for anybody. Or they could’ve let her leave and toured with Lindsey and not her, which would mean some money but not as much as previously thought since literally every promoter (and the vast majority of casual fans) would prefer a Lindsey-less band to a Stevie-less band. They chose to give him the boot because this band is still a business and keeping her happy makes them the maximum amount of money. Simple as that. They don’t care that she’s sad, they only care that she rakes in the big bucks. I wouldn’t be surprised if some members had no problem with LB at all (until this lawsuit of course). But it wasn’t about anybody’s feelings, it was about what made the most sense for their business and their income. Which is also why none of them responded to Lindsey afterwards. It’s all about preserving what’s left of their band and maximizing their future opportunities.
It could very well be about longevity also. They’re bound to last longer and continue carrying on a fan base if they have Stevie around than if they only had Linds around. How many people would buy an FM record without her? Not many. In this situation, from a business perspective, the only real option for them to continue their commercial success and have job security is to keep her around.
If Lindsey was the more successful of the group, they would’ve thrown Stevie out in two seconds. And I doubt Lindsey would’ve objected. Business trumps feelings.

dreamsunwind 10-12-2018 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhiannondontgo (Post 1240466)
I disagree. Lindsey’s firing absolutely came about due to money. Unless there’s a lot more to the story than we know, it doesn’t sound like the whole band had hurt feelings. Only Stevie. Why are Stevie’s feelings dictating the band? Because of the money. When Stevie didn’t want the album to be named Tusk by Mick & Linds, she didn’t get her way. When Stevie didn’t want to listen to Lindsey & the photographer about taking off her top for the cover of BN, she didn’t get her way. When she had a problem with them doing Come live, she didn’t get her way. Her “feelings” then were not any more valued than Lindsey’s are now. Right now it’s her monetary value dictating these decisions, not consideration for her feelings. She isn’t just complaining anymore, she’s saying flat out that she does not want to be around Lindsey Buckingham at all. The band knew they had a tour already planned out, promoters all ready, and fans excited. And now the “face” of the band was threatening to refuse to participate. Yeah FM could’ve just disbanded all together, but that would equal no money for anybody. Or they could’ve let her leave and toured with Lindsey and not her, which would mean some money but not as much as previously thought since literally every promoter (and the vast majority of casual fans) would prefer a Lindsey-less band to a Stevie-less band. They chose to give him the boot because this band is still a business and keeping her happy makes them the maximum amount of money. Simple as that. They don’t care that she’s sad, they only care that she rakes in the big bucks. I wouldn’t be surprised if some members had no problem with LB at all (until this lawsuit of course). But it wasn’t about anybody’s feelings, it was about what made the most sense for their business and their income. Which is also why none of them responded to Lindsey afterwards. It’s all about preserving what’s left of their band and maximizing their future opportunities.
It could very well be about longevity also. They’re bound to last longer and continue carrying on a fan base if they have Stevie around than if they only had Linds around. How many people would buy an FM record without her? Not many. In this situation, from a business perspective, the only real option for them to continue their commercial success and have job security is to keep her around.
If Lindsey was the more successful of the group, they would’ve thrown Stevie out in two seconds. And I doubt Lindsey would’ve objected. Business trumps feelings.


I agree about the BN photoshoot but I see no reason why the band should've not named the album Tusk or not done Come live just because Stevie didn't like it? That's not a great example of the band not caring about Stevie's feelings because those were ridiculous feelings to begin with. Things like that are just more examples of how Stevie has a childish side to her, can be quite petty and always has. However now, as you said, she's leveraged her monetary value to back that up, which is a big part of how what's happened happened.

And I think Lindsey would've objected. He objected to bringing in Sheryl Crow to take Christine's spot. And he objected to replacing John. And I'm not saying he would've objected because he cares about Stevie, but because he cares about the legacy of the band. That clearly was something that mattered to him.

rhiannondontgo 10-12-2018 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreamsunwind (Post 1240467)
I agree about the BN photoshoot but I see no reason why the band should've not named the album Tusk or not done Come live just because Stevie didn't like it? That's not a great example of the band not caring about Stevie's feelings because those were ridiculous feelings to begin with. Things like that are just more examples of how Stevie has a childish side to her, can be quite petty and always has. However now, as you said, she's leveraged her monetary value to back that up, which is a big part of how what's happened happened.

And I think Lindsey would've objected. He objected to bringing in Sheryl Crow to take Christine's spot. And he objected to replacing John. And I'm not saying he would've objected because he cares about Stevie, but because he cares about the legacy of the band. That clearly was something that mattered to him.

I’m not saying all of her complaints were right or should have been followed. I’m just saying she has a long history of airing her feelings and not getting her way for it. Which is how you know this isn’t just about feelings, it’s about her monetary value which is actually being threatened for the first time in a very long time.
And in all honesty, I agree that Lindsey does care about the “legacy”. Not because he’s a saint or genuinely cares more about the fans than the others do, but because he knows the legacy is his biggest value. The way Stevie’s value is putting butts in seats and raising ticket costs. The biggest thing LB brings to the table is the nostalgic feelings you get from watching this legendary band of two feuding couples perform together. My mom (a diehard FM/Stevie fan since she was 13) first reacted to his firing with “Oh no, now we’re not gonna get all those dramatic Silver Springs moments anymore!” It wasn’t about missing his voice or his guitar playing for her. There’s other people who can sing well and play amazing guitar. I mean we’ve now replaced him two times and both times the final product of the replacements playing/singing wasn’t bad on the ears or a disgrace musically. What’s missing with LB “replacements” is the feelings and the rich history behind the performance. He knows that as well as we do. That’s why 20,000 people show up to see him sing Go Your Own Way and Second Hand News while staring right at Stevie as she sings back up, but only like a thousand people will show up to see the same guy do the same kick ass performance of the same songs on his own. It’s about the band’s (and more notably, the couple’s) history and the legacy. That’s what he brings to the table.
If the positions were switched and he was the one with all the monetary value and public notoriety, I doubt he would give a sh*t about anyone’s “legacy”. He has to care now because that’s what made him valuable to the band above anything else.

bwboy 10-12-2018 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhiannondontgo (Post 1240469)
I’m not saying all of her complaints were right or should have been followed. I’m just saying she has a long history of airing her feelings and not getting her way for it. Which is how you know this isn’t just about feelings, it’s about her monetary value which is actually being threatened for the first time in a very long time.
And in all honesty, I agree that Lindsey does care about the “legacy”. Not because he’s a saint or genuinely cares more about the fans than the others do, but because he knows the legacy is his biggest value. The way Stevie’s value is putting butts in seats and raising ticket costs. The biggest thing LB brings to the table is the nostalgic feelings you get from watching this legendary band of two feuding couples perform together. My mom (a diehard FM/Stevie fan since she was 13) first reacted to his firing with “Oh no, now we’re not gonna get all those dramatic Silver Springs moments anymore!” It wasn’t about missing his voice or his guitar playing for her. There’s other people who can sing well and play amazing guitar. I mean we’ve now replaced him two times and both times the final product of the replacements playing/singing wasn’t bad on the ears or a disgrace musically. What’s missing with LB “replacements” is the feelings and the rich history behind the performance. He knows that as well as we do. That’s why 20,000 people show up to see him sing Go Your Own Way and Second Hand News while staring right at Stevie as she sings back up, but only like a thousand people will show up to see the same guy do the same kick ass performance of the same songs on his own. It’s about the band’s (and more notably, the couple’s) history and the legacy. That’s what he brings to the table.
If the positions were switched and he was the one with all the monetary value and public notoriety, I doubt he would give a sh*t about anyone’s “legacy”. He has to care now because that’s what made him valuable to the band above anything else.

Rhiannondontgo, I'm at a loss for words- I really can't disagree with anything you said, and I think you actually nailed the casual fan reaction to Lindsey and Stevie's stage dynamic. Once you said this, I could totally see it in my head.

jwd 10-12-2018 09:31 PM

Some interesting points from reading the complaint filed by Lindsey.

They are all equal members. Band decisions are made by unanimous vote, not majority rules. Lindsey didn't vote himself out of FM. He's still a member, and rightfully so. So unless he did something so egregiously wrong, he's in.

He's laying claim to "FM". It's not just Mick and John's band, it's all five members' band. Due to the record of fact of what he has done for the "business" via songwriting, producing, performing, recording, directing and the commercial success the "business" has attained while doing so. Unless it can be proven that he should not legally be a member.

He's laying claim to not only 20 percent of the proceeds of the current tour, but any subsequent tour and all merchandising proceeds etc. Lindsey has a an invested stake in "FM" and should be compensated accordingly.

So Fleetwood Mac continues and pays Lindsey, or they dissolve. Unless they can prove him not to be a legal member of said partnership.


DAMN, this is going to get ugly. I firmly believe there will be no so called reunion of The Rumours Five ever. IT'S OVER!

SteveMacD 10-12-2018 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreamsunwind (Post 1240460)
I think you're taking that comment way too seriously.

Am I? I remember cringing when I heard him say it and thinking that would have been a fireable offense in any other band. And low and behold he got fired.

Quote:

I doubt Irv Azoff gives a crap about a little remark from one of the members of one of the bands he manages.
Azoff was also promoting a festival he was heavily invested in, and someone in the headline act publicly took a dump on it while tickets were still on sale. Do you think Lindsey made an ally with that comment?

And, while that remark alone likely wouldn’t be enough to get him fired from Fleetwood Mac, it certainly put him under the microscope. He very publicly expressed a lack of enthusiasm for the show, and their show was subsequently panned as being lifeless, void of chemistry and drama, like they were sleepwalking through the show. Sure, there was probably enough blame to spread all around the band for that, but the LBCM tour had been getting great reviews, especially for the chemistry between Lindsey and Christine, and there was only one member who publicly expressed a lack of enthusiasm about doing the show in the first place. It was like it became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Then when they were negotiating, he requested a delay for a solo album, which he admittedly rescinded, but I think by that point things started snowballing. A concurrent tour was laughable. If he couldn’t bring the same level of enthusiasm he had for a new project back into the band for two major festival shows, how was a concurrent tour work?

The blowup over Rhiannon (or any of their songs) getting played prior to their grand entrance and the smirk (which I bet they all got an earful over) was just enough to set Stevie over the edge. Now, normally Azoff would be the Stevie whisperer, but Lindsey hadn’t exactly made himself an endearing figure by that point and possibly a liability in Azoff’s eyes. Since Lindsey didn’t sign off on the tour, it was just easier to replace one icon with another. Much like he did with the Eagles.

Storms123 10-12-2018 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwd (Post 1240471)
Some interesting points from reading the complaint filed by Lindsey.

They are all equal members. Band decisions are made by unanimous vote, not majority rules. Lindsey didn't vote himself out of FM. He's still a member, and rightfully so. So unless he did something so egregiously wrong, he's in.

He's laying claim to "FM". It's not just Mick and John's band, it's all five members' band. Due to the record of fact of what he has done for the "business" via songwriting, producing, performing, recording, directing and the commercial success the "business" has attained while doing so. Unless it can be proven that he should not legally be a member.

He's laying claim to not only 20 percent of the proceeds of the current tour, but any subsequent tour and all merchandising proceeds etc. Lindsey has a an invested stake in "FM" and should be compensated accordingly.

So Fleetwood Mac continues and pays Lindsey, or they dissolve. Unless they can prove him not to be a legal member of said partnership.


DAMN, this is going to get ugly. I firmly believe there will be no so called reunion of The Rumours Five ever. IT'S OVER!



LOL It's definitely gonna get ugly. I still don't see it going to court, but there could be one final reunion of the Rumours 5 if only to make back all of the money could lose ( and think about all the money they would make) if they don't at least break even on this one. Mick's child support, alimony and bankruptcy's alone. Maybe they can team up with The Eagles for a "Hell Refroze" tour?
Given the legal ramifications though, do they want to make more or less on this tour? Honestly I don't know???

jwd 10-12-2018 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Storms123 (Post 1240474)

LOL It's definitely gonna get ugly. I still don't see it going to court, but there could be one final reunion of the Rumours 5 if only to make back all of the money could lose ( and think about all the money they would make) if they don't at least break even on this one. Mick's child support, alimony and bankruptcy's alone. Maybe they can team up with The Eagles for a "Hell Refroze" tour?
Given the legal ramifications though, do they want to make more or less on this tour? Honestly I don't know???

Would you attend that farce? I honestly couldn't. It's not over for just them, it's over for a lot of their fans too.

secondhandchain 10-12-2018 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Storms123 (Post 1240474)
[/B]

LOL It's definitely gonna get ugly. I still don't see it going to court, but there could be one final reunion of the Rumours 5 if only to make back all of the money could lose ( and think about all the money they would make) if they don't at least break even on this one. Mick's child support, alimony and bankruptcy's alone. Maybe they can team up with The Eagles for a "Hell Refroze" tour?
Given the legal ramifications though, do they want to make more or less on this tour? Honestly I don't know???

No WAY. They are done.

rhiannondontgo 10-12-2018 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwd (Post 1240471)
Band decisions are made by unanimous vote, not majority rules. Lindsey didn't vote himself out of FM. He's still a member, and rightfully so. So unless he did something so egregiously wrong, he's in.

My question about this point is: is there any actual written contract outlining this rule or was this just an informal way that they had been conducting business to try to please as many members as possible and keep fighting to a minimum? It said at one point in the lawsuit that there “has never been an overarching band agreement detailing the various member’s rights and obligations”. So unless i’m misunderstanding this line and it doesn’t apply to the “unanimous partners” aspect, it seems like this way of doing business wasn’t any written contractual obligation. Seems to just be a casual way they chose to handle disagreements together. Like a family etching out house rules to hang on their refrigerator just to make home life more peaceful.
Also, this band has a long history of majority-rules voting. As we were discussing earlier, there’s been lots of times that a certain member was against something that happened anyway (like Stevie being against naming the album Tusk for example). So it doesn’t sound like this rule Lindsey speaks of has always been enforced. And it certainly doesn’t sound like it was a legal contractual agreement.
(I could be wrong here. I’m actually not trying to be argumentative here, i’m genuinely asking if anyone knows if this point was an actual written agreement.)

SteveMacD 10-12-2018 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwd (Post 1240471)
They are all equal members. Band decisions are made by unanimous vote, not majority rules. Lindsey didn't vote himself out of FM. He's still a member, and rightfully so. So unless he did something so egregiously wrong, he's in.

He's laying claim to "FM". It's not just Mick and John's band, it's all five members' band. Due to the record of fact of what he has done for the "business" via songwriting, producing, performing, recording, directing and the commercial success the "business" has attained while doing so. Unless it can be proven that he should not legally be a member.

Mick and John are the exclusive owners of the name, but it became an equal partnership in 1976, IIRC.

Ultimately, I think this will play out like what happened with Cheap Trick and Bun E. Carlos.

From his Wikipedia page

Quote:

In 2013, Carlos filed a lawsuit against his former Cheap Trick bandmates, claiming that even though they claimed that he was still a band member, he was not being allowed to participate in band-related activities. The remaining three members of Cheap Trick filed a countersuit, seeking an official affirmation of their removal of Carlos. Their lawsuit was thrown out by a Delaware judge in late 2013.[7]

On February 26, 2015, Robin Zander announced that the lawsuit was over. “We’ve settled our differences,” Zander continued. “Bun E.’s a member of the band, but he’s not touring and he’s not recording. … We’ve had our differences, but we’re all settled up now and hopefully we can forget about that era. These decisions that Cheap Trick makes, Bun E. is part of.” Carlos is a business partner in the Cheap Trick merchandising business and remains involved in their releases of older material which he participated in the recording of:

jwd 10-12-2018 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhiannondontgo (Post 1240479)
My question about this point is: is there any actual written contract outlining this rule or was this just an informal way that they had been conducting business to try to please as many members as possible and keep fighting to a minimum? It said at one point in the lawsuit that there “has never been an overarching band agreement detailing the various member’s rights and obligations”. So unless i’m misunderstanding this line and it doesn’t apply to the “unanimous partners” aspect, it seems like this way of doing business wasn’t any written contractual obligation. Seems to just be a casual way they chose to handle disagreements together. Like a family etching out house rules to hang on their refrigerator just to make home life more peaceful.
Also, this band has a long history of majority-rules voting. As we were discussing earlier, there’s been lots of times that a certain member was against something that happened anyway (like Stevie being against naming the album Tusk for example). So it doesn’t sound like this rule Lindsey speaks of has always been enforced. And it certainly doesn’t sound like it was a legal contractual agreement.
(I could be wrong here. I’mactyallyn not trying to be argumentative here, i’m genuinely asking if anyone knows if this point was an actual written agreement.)

I'm not a legal expert by any means, but oral agreements are legitimate. If indeed the court can determine there was such an agreement, it will stand up in a court of law. There doesn't have to be a written contract.

jwd 10-12-2018 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveMacD (Post 1240480)
Mick and John are the exclusive owners of the name, but it became an equal partnership in 1976, IIRC.

Ultimately, I think this will play out like what happened with Cheap Trick and Bun E. Carlos.

From his Wikipedia page


I wonder how much money Lindsey would settle for. 14M is peanuts!

rhiannondontgo 10-12-2018 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwd (Post 1240481)
I'm not a legal expert by any means, but oral agreements are legitimate. If indeed the court can determine there was such an agreement, it will stand up in a court of law. There doesn't have to be a written contract.

Has anybody here ever heard of them having this rule before? The band has been legally a partnership since 76 apparently, yet there’s been many times that certain members hated something but had to go through with it anyway. If it was an equal partnership and one member could put a stop to any band decision, i’m positive Stevie wouldn’t just have objected to the name Tusk but also would’ve put a stop to putting the dog on the cover (which irritated her endlessly according to band insiders). She also says she was 110% against putting I Don’t Want To Know on Rumours and dramatially claims she “had to record it with a gun to her head”. And again she was apparently very against them performing the song Come on tour.
Stevie, as much as I love her, is one of the most stubborn, petty, controlling artists I know of. If she had the power to put a stop to any of these things that she hated due to an “equal partnership ruled by unanimous voting”, there’s no way she wouldn’t have used that power to get her way time and time again.

Storms123 10-12-2018 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwd (Post 1240476)
Would you attend that farce? I honestly couldn't. It's not over for just them, it's over for a lot of their fans too.

Didn't say I would attend, just said I can see it. Doesn't make sense, but nothing these people do make sense. Mick has no scruples


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
© 1995-2003 Martin and Lisa Adelson, All Rights Reserved