Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Carlos v. Nielsen, Peterson and Zander
07-22-2013, 03:01 PM,
#16
RE: Carlos v. Nielsen, Peterson and Zander
(07-22-2013, 01:43 PM)lainey Wrote: I don't get why there would be an agreement for Mr. C to be paid for all live performances he was not in. What a sweet deal! I will not be there working, traveling, playing, etc. but I will be paid for it as if I was there. Huh


No kidding...something sounds fishy with that arrangement
Reply
07-22-2013, 03:05 PM,
#17
RE: Carlos v. Nielsen, Peterson and Zander
It's pointless speculating when there's obviously another side to this story,personally I don't see anything changing.
Reply
07-22-2013, 03:29 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-22-2013, 03:32 PM by Calypso.)
#18
RE: Carlos v. Nielsen, Peterson and Zander
(07-22-2013, 02:40 PM)VikkiB Wrote:
(07-22-2013, 02:21 PM)Calypso Wrote: Hmmmm.........there seems to be a whole half of that story missing.....mainly the otherside....... not to mention the presses ability to skew things. I think I would wait before I would jump to any kind of conclusions.

Well said,Bunnie. I agree. Still so sad this whole issue.. Sad

Why thank ypu mame! Wink Yes, it is sad, but, there just seems to be a lot of missing details........which, in the longrun, may not even be any of our business. And, I think the other three may have their own side......and, there may be a good chance that they have too much class to express that. Eitherway, like I said, there is at least half a story missing in that statement......at the very least. Wink
(07-22-2013, 03:05 PM)Darran Wrote: It's pointless speculating when there's obviously another side to this story,personally I don't see anything changing.

Indeed, I second that sir! Wink
"Don't interrupt me while I am interrupting you."~ Winston Churchill
"That's the spirit Bunster f*#@ em!" ~ Darran
Reply
07-22-2013, 05:36 PM,
#19
RE: Carlos v. Nielsen, Peterson and Zander
I doubt there will be any statements as it will be subjudice (to be decided in court).
It's really sad. Really sad.

It upsets me to see this happen to my favourite band.

(Heavily edited)
Reply
07-22-2013, 08:38 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-22-2013, 08:45 PM by curiouser.)
#20
RE: Carlos v. Nielsen, Peterson and Zander
Wonder how long before this thread magically disappears.
Rick's off the hook, since they are going after Richard Nielson.
And with all the loves and hates and passions just like mine...
Reply
07-22-2013, 10:10 PM,
#21
RE: Carlos v. Nielsen, Peterson and Zander
Too bad it has come to this. It's now up to the courts to decide what the original contracts mean… they have a way on interpreting things another way once they are being contested. I can see the band paying Bun some compensation, keeping the name and things carrying on as usual, but you never know.

This certainly isn't the first and won't be the last band member to bring a lawsuit against his band mates.
Reply
07-23-2013, 09:52 AM,
#22
RE: Carlos v. Nielsen, Peterson and Zander
Obviously have to wait and see how things shake out in court, which could very easily take years.....My concern is that the band could be put in perpetual limbo as far as recording and touring goes....No doubt they will honor their present touring commitments, but after that is anybody's guess. My advice to the folks that live near upcoming venues is to get to those shows!!
Reply
07-23-2013, 10:05 AM,
#23
RE: Carlos v. Nielsen, Peterson and Zander
(07-23-2013, 09:52 AM)cdg Wrote: Obviously have to wait and see how things shake out in court, which could very easily take years.....My concern is that the band could be put in perpetual limbo as far as recording and touring goes....No doubt they will honor their present touring commitments, but after that is anybody's guess. My advice to the folks that live near upcoming venues is to get to those shows!!

Nah you worry too much. Confused
Reply
07-23-2013, 10:25 AM,
#24
RE: Carlos v. Nielsen, Peterson and Zander
(07-22-2013, 01:43 PM)lainey Wrote: I don't get why there would be an agreement for Mr. C to be paid for all live performances he was not in. What a sweet deal! I will not be there working, traveling, playing, etc. but I will be paid for it as if I was there. Huh

More common than you might think.

He is not an employee but a 1/4 member of Cheap Trick Incorporated and they are making money selling a product based on legacy that he helped build. Sounds like there is an agreement in place stating he is entitled to receive a share of the income.

Steve Perry of Journey, Ronnie Van Zandt and Allen Collin of Lynyrd Skynyrd (their heirs as of 2000-ish were also part owners) are examples of non-performing members still receiving tour income.
Reply
07-23-2013, 10:33 AM,
#25
RE: Carlos v. Nielsen, Peterson and Zander
Oh man...
Reply
07-23-2013, 11:13 AM, (This post was last modified: 07-23-2013, 11:24 AM by clp.)
#26
RE: Carlos v. Nielsen, Peterson and Zander
"The Court should also enjoin defendants from further misuse of the trademarks and other assets of the Cheap Trick Companies, and grant other appropriate relief,"

Yeah, people worry too much.

With the contention of the band continuing under the name "Cheap Trick" it sounds like compensation is being sought. It does not sound like they are trying to stop them from using the name "Cheap Trick" outright.

This part of the case will likely be dealt with first and quickly. The partnership will be terminated and the rightful owner of the name "Cheap Trick" will be determined. It's hard to believe that a court would stop the band from using the name after building up a reputation for nearly 40 years when 3/4 of the original band is still intact. Search out the Queensryche saga for an example. Sure Bun E. helped build that reputation but he is not the reason people go to see the band.

Touring will continue as usual and life will go on.

After the buyout of Bun's share in the company is settled the monies claimed owing by the Plaintiffs will be the long drawn out process of the case. Interpreting contracts and intentions… to determine amounts owed to the parties can take a while.

The writing has been on the wall for a while and the recent action brought on by Bun to play on the Special Christmas track should have been the tip off. The other major red flag that was raised was when in a 2012 interview Bun said he hadn't talked to the other members in years. You would have thought that after the stage collapse in Ottawa he would have contacted them to see if they were ok but didn't. This was the first sign that this was a major rift.

I'm also guessing that the reason why Bun was deleted from the photos for concert events was so that they (the band) can legally claim that they were not trying to misrepresent themselves as "Cheap Trick" with Bun E. Carlos on drums.

Whatever the case I respect the class of the band for keeping most of this out of the press and dealing with the situation privately like it should be. To tell the truth what is going on is none of our business. The problem is we live in the age where people always think they have the "right-to-know". To tell the truth we don't.
Reply
07-23-2013, 11:36 AM,
#27
RE: Carlos v. Nielsen, Peterson and Zander
(07-23-2013, 11:13 AM)clp Wrote: To tell the truth what is going on is none of our business. The problem is we live in the age where people always think they have the "right-to-know". To tell the truth we don't.

The "age" of which you speak is not anything new - open courts are a founding principal of our nation. Court documents and proceedings have always been open to the public in America, so there actually is a 'right to know' once something rises to the level of litigation.

Just sayin.'
"....and I'm laughin' inside all the while....."
Reply
07-23-2013, 11:53 AM,
#28
RE: Carlos v. Nielsen, Peterson and Zander
I mean more so on the personal side of things. Most people want to know what the rift is really about. Why Bun E. isn't touring with them. What happened between them…

This is the kind of stuff that is really none of our business and that the band as a whole have done a nice job of keeping out of the press by not getting into a public feud.

As far as court documents, sure, all is fair game and some of the ugly side of things may go public because of it but to tell the truth I don't really want to know.

What I meant by the "right-to-know" age is people think celebrities lives should be public because of who they are. Everyone has a right to privacy and the times have taken that away from too many people in the public eye. Musicians, actors, athletes, you name it.
Reply
07-23-2013, 11:58 AM,
#29
RE: Carlos v. Nielsen, Peterson and Zander
(07-23-2013, 11:53 AM)clp Wrote: I mean more so on the personal side of things. Most people want to know what the rift is really about. Why Bun E. isn't touring with them. What happened between them…

This is the kind of stuff that is really none of our business and that the band as a whole have done a nice job of keeping out of the press by not getting into a public feud.

As far as court documents, sure, all is fair game and some of the ugly side of things may go public because of it but to tell the truth I don't really want to know.

What I meant by the "right-to-know" age is people think celebrities lives should be public because of who they are. Everyone has a right to privacy and the times have taken that away from too many people in the public eye. Musicians, actors, athletes, you name it.

Great posting Sir. Cool
Reply
07-23-2013, 12:04 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-23-2013, 12:06 PM by Debbie Lowe.)
#30
RE: Carlos v. Nielsen, Peterson and Zander
(07-23-2013, 11:13 AM)clp Wrote: "The Court should also enjoin defendants from further misuse of the trademarks and other assets of the Cheap Trick Companies, and grant other appropriate relief,"

Yeah, people worry too much.

With the contention of the band continuing under the name "Cheap Trick" it sounds like compensation is being sought. It does not sound like they are trying to stop them from using the name "Cheap Trick" outright.

See I read that the opposite of the way your interpret it. That they ARE trying to stop further use of the name and trademarks such as the CT logo. Confused

I guess we will wait and see what happens here; what other choice do we have really? LOL

I thought more about this last night and really want to reserve any opinions I might have for a while. As I mentioned on someone's Facebook page, I don't know any of the details here or even any details about the reason why Bun E doesn't tour anymore. Nor should I know these details as it's probably none of my business. Big Grin I have just continued to support both Cheap Trick and Bun E. separately via his Facebook page.

I hope that things can be resolved in such a way that is fair and satisfying to both sides here and I can go on supporting them both like I have been.

Long live Cheap Trick and Bun E!!



Debbie Lowe
"Thought no one could hear me, I was goin' insane...!"
"Dance, dance, dance across the floor, a lust for life I've never seen before"
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)