Lindsey Buckingham's complaint against FM - Filed 10/9/18 in Los Angeles - document - Page 12

jwd · #**166** 10-12-2018, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhiannondontgo

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.

I think some things are more important than others. Deciding what goes on an album cover or which song to be included on an album can be reached by consensus or a majority rules decision. When you're talking about dismissing a member of the band or touring conditions, that's a whole other ballgame.

Storms123 · #**167** 10-12-2018, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwd

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.

They are completely legit if you have supportive docs---unfortunately, I know too much about this. Oral/Verbal agreements are real and it holds up in court. It's legit---Lindsey has a case, and I am sure the band has their perspective too. Will be interesting.

rhiannondontgo · #**168** 10-12-2018, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwd

I think some things are more important than others. Deciding what goes on an album cover or which song to be included on an album can be reached by consensus or a majority rules decision. When you're talking about dismissing a member of the band or touring conditions, that's a whole other ballgame.

I agree that Stevie’s concessions are quite minimal and not that big of a deal, but I think they have a good defense when it comes to him claiming that all band decisions have to be agreed upon unanimously. It doesn’t seem like it’s that ironclad if he has no written contract showing that this agreement existed and FM has an arsenal of examples of times certain partners opposed something that ultimately continued due to a “majority rules” school of voting.

jwd · #**169** 10-12-2018, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Storms123

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

The bigger question is whether Lindsey would still be willing to do it. Or Stevie. You know she never wants to be on stage with him ever again. Stranger things have happened. Maybe they will have one last big kumbaya moment.

jwd · #**170** 10-12-2018, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhiannondontgo

I agree that Stevie’s concessions are quite minimal and not that big of a deal, but I think they have a good defense when it comes to him claiming that all band decisions have to be agreed upon unanimously. It doesn’t seem like it’s that ironclad if he has no written contract showing that this agreement existed and FM has an arsenal of examples of times certain partners opposed something that ultimately continued due to a “majority rules” school of voting.

I think that there would be something to substantiate that those big decisions were to be reached by unanimous vote. Testimony from the other band members perhaps or other examples in the bands' history to prove it. Here come the judge!

jwd · #**171** 10-12-2018, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Storms123

They are completely legit if you have supportive docs---unfortunately, I know too much about this. Oral/Verbal agreements are real and it holds up in court. It's legit---Lindsey has a case, and I am sure the band has their perspective too. Will be interesting.

I think a lot of it has to do with intent. They all intended to go on tour with Lindsey. That was his understanding. The band had discussions about it. There were discussions with Live Nation. That in itself constitutes an oral agreement.

SteveMacD · #**172** 10-12-2018, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwd

When you're talking about dismissing a member of the band or touring conditions, that's a whole other ballgame.

Is it even possible to have unanimous consent when terminating an equal partner?

bombaysaffires · #**173** 10-12-2018, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by secondhandchain

No WAY. They are done.

People are clearly forgetting or ignoring Stevie's very clear statement that she DOES NOT WANT TO SHARE A STAGE WITH HIM AGAIN. she felt so strongly about this she issued a straight up ultimatum to the band.

She has refused to record with him since 2003, albeit in public using more evasive methods to describe it, e.g. blaming the lackluster sales of albums an such. But she was done with recording with him then and has never done it since.

She will not suddenly change her mind, imho, and miraculously want to tour with him to make more money,. She could have done this this time, and clearly did not. She felt so strongly about not sharing a stage with him again she was willing to forego the tour altogether, knowing she could go out again solo. (But she also knew which way they'd choose so how much of a gamble was it really?)

Anyway, the chances of them doing any sort of reunion on tour from where I sit is a big fat zero.

Next time they'll all be together will be in court (which won't need to happen, the lawyers will handle everything) or one of their funerals. If Stevie gets in the RRHOF LB certainly won't show up, and I doubt John will.

Storms123 · #**174** 10-12-2018, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwd

I think a lot of it has to do with intent. They all intended to go on tour with Lindsey. That was his understanding. The band had discussions about it. There were discussions with Live Nation. That in itself constitutes an oral agreement.

Exactly! And the Live Nation component is an interesting one. Which "formation" of FM did they think they were getting and were ticket sales impacted by the "formation" they got. I am definitely not looking to go down a legal rabbit hole. I am not a lawyer (nor do I want to be one), but through no fault of my own, I can tell you 100% oral/verbal contracts are 100% real and hold up in a court of law .

jwd · #**175** 10-12-2018, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

Is it even possible to have unanimous consent when terminating an equal partner?

No!

Unless partner votes himself/herself out. You'd have to prove him "unfit", for lack of a better word, to be a member of the partnership. A serious offense detrimental to the partnership's continuation. That's where it's going to get ugly.

Storms123 · #**176** 10-12-2018, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwd

The bigger question is whether Lindsey would still be willing to do it. Or Stevie. You know she never wants to be on stage with him ever again. Stranger things have happened. Maybe they will have one last big kumbaya moment.

I think it's been easily confirmed, Mick will do anything for a $$$. Rest of them, not so sure, but they also don't have the spending/ex-wife problem he has.

jwd · #**177** 10-12-2018, 10:45 PM

I recommend everyone read the complaint. It's very informative and revealing. Lindsey states his case very well. And unless FM can prove he did something seriously wrong to disrupt the partnership known as FM, I think he'll win. At least a hell of a lot of money.

SteveMacD · #**178** 10-12-2018, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwd

I recommend everyone read the complaint. It's very informative and revealing. Lindsey states his case very well. And unless FM can prove he did something seriously wrong to disrupt the partnership known as FM, I think he'll win. At least a hell of a lot of money.

I like how he mentions them opening for Crosby, Stills, & Nash in 1994, but conveniently leaves out that he opened for Tina Turner in 1993. He used them just as much as they used him when all of their careers were in the toilet in the mid-90s. He saw the success of the Eagles and Page-Plant reunions. They all did, as did the label, Clear Channel (iHeart Radio), Viacom, etc.

jwd · #**179** 10-12-2018, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

I like how he mentions them opening for Crosby, Stills, & Nash in 1994, but conveniently leaves out that he opened for Tina Turner in 1993. He used them just as much as they used him when all of their careers were in the toilet in the mid-90s. He saw the success of the Eagles and Page-Plant reunions. They all did, as did the label, Clear Channel (iHeart Radio), Viacom, etc.

Moral of the story is that they're better together than apart. Something we've all known for a very long time now.

dreamsunwind · #**180** 10-12-2018, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

I like how he mentions them opening for Crosby, Stills, & Nash in 1994, but conveniently leaves out that he opened for Tina Turner in 1993. He used them just as much as they used him when all of their careers were in the toilet in the mid-90s. He saw the success of the Eagles and Page-Plant reunions. They all did, as did the label, Clear Channel (iHeart Radio), Viacom, etc.

I get what you're saying but the thing is, "Lindsey Buckingham" (as in solo) was NEVER a big name and was certainly never 1/16th as big of a name as "Fleetwood Mac". Fleetwood Mac as an opening act is a genuine embarrassment for them. Lindsey solo as an opening act isn't.