Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Robbie Williams 'would buy drugs for his daughter'


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 27-06-2013, 16:04
Blockz99
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,244
i wouldn't bother replying to this one (unique)- just read his posting history .
he likes nothing more than a argument about anything and everything .
and i suspect he will be along to tell me he doesn't but i know better .
Thanks for the heads up...I've given up with reasoning with some on here
Blockz99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 27-06-2013, 16:37
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,886
But you are - you implied that the Child abuse allegations decreased his potential to make money and led to him being in debt when nothing of the sort happened. Most knowledgable people agree that it was his reluctance to tour , his reluctance to record new music and his extravagent lifestyle before his death that contributed to his enormous debt not the Child abuse allegations. His music was still on heavy rotation on Gold and Pop/Rock stations the world over before his death.
what nonsense. of course this decreased his potential to make money. why do you think they choose london for the shows instead of touring america? haven't you heard of any people who have said they would never buy his records because he was a peado? same with gary glitter, many people simply won't buy his records any more or see him if he played live
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-06-2013, 16:38
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,886
But you know enough to write this about me....
i guess you don't know much about pop/rock stars
yeah, a guess, as i don't know you. you could be a cleaner in hmv for all i know
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-06-2013, 16:39
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,886
No there isn't. Everyone else manages it.
yes there is, as you can see from my posts as the site doesn't format them properly. it might work for most people, but it doesn't work for me, and i don't get this problem on other sites
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-06-2013, 16:42
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,886
Anyway back to your original post. ....you have every right to believe that its fine for an already incredibly wealthy man to use his new born baby to make some money by using the baby to promote a new album or any other product. I just think its cheap and really says a lot about the father. I don't think most people who had Williams financial security would do the same.
well that's a fair comment. but that's what you think, and as you can see not everone agrees. that's the way of the world. people disagreeing works to his advantage, which is the point of making a "controversial" statement for publicity reasons, so people talk about it and create free publicity, which in turn generates income. it's not like he's actually done anything, all he's done is made a comment. a far cry from assaulting your girlfriend or sleeping with underage kids
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-06-2013, 16:46
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,886
then surely you would have known that robbie`s deal back in 2002 was not just a record advance like you described a previous post. the deal also included emi having a stake in his future touring, merchandising and sponsorship during the contracted period. while it cannot be denied that his record sales tailed off towards the end of the deal with emi, his touring in particular would have offset any losses made through with his recorded music under performing.
how could i surely know that? i wasn't given a copy of the contract? was it even published for people to read?
i don't doubt that the 80 million quoted was press sound-bite designed to grab headlines and i don't think for one minute his pocketed anywhere near that amount immediately after signing the deal.
ok, so you can understand what i'm saying then

however, i do think his deal with emi was beneficial to both parties financially
absolutely no doubt
and i would doubt robbie actually owed emi money following under performing albums, which you implied in post 60.
no, i wasn't implying that at all. you misunderstood me there. the reality would have been closer to not getting the next batch of money, or at least not anywhere near the "headline" amount until more of the money from the last album/tour/whatever was recouped. whilst the records didn't do so well, his tours did pretty well. but back when his contract (which i've not seen) was issued, it wasn't common for tours to be linked to record deals, whereas it's more common today with deals from AEG for example
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-06-2013, 16:49
Blockz99
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,244
well that's a fair comment. but that's what you think, and as you can see not everone agrees. that's the way of the world. people disagreeing works to his advantage, which is the point of making a "controversial" statement for publicity reasons, so people talk about it and create free publicity, which in turn generates income. it's not like he's actually done anything, all he's done is made a comment. a far cry from assaulting your girlfriend or sleeping with underage kids
You mean all hes done is use his Baby to generate some publicity for his ego.
Blockz99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-06-2013, 16:57
Blockz99
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,244
what nonsense. of course this decreased his potential to make money. why do you think they choose london for the shows instead of touring america? haven't you heard of any people who have said they would never buy his records because he was a peado? same with gary glitter, many people simply won't buy his records any more or see him if he played live
You're attempt at equating the public reaction to Glitter and Jacksons alleged and proved activities is ridiculous. Glitters
career was completely and utterly destroyed - Jacksons though tarnished was not . Again the facts speak for themselves $600-900million estate post death does not amount to a destroyed career . I'm not sure why you cant accept that the ability of Jackson to generate huge amounts of money was not destroyed by the court cases .
Blockz99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-06-2013, 18:12
gpk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Penryn, Falmouth, Cornwall.
Posts: 10,033
how could i surely know that? i wasn't given a copy of the contract? was it even published for people to read?

ok, so you can understand what i'm saying then

absolutely no doubt

no, i wasn't implying that at all. you misunderstood me there. the reality would have been closer to not getting the next batch of money, or at least not anywhere near the "headline" amount until more of the money from the last album/tour/whatever was recouped. whilst the records didn't do so well, his tours did pretty well. but back when his contract (which i've not seen) was issued, it wasn't common for tours to be linked to record deals, whereas it's more common today with deals from AEG for example
it wasn't common practise, but his deal in 2002 with emi did include profit sharing from touring, along with merchandising and sponsorship. it was something that was wildly reported at the time and his representatives claimed the deal was "respective elements of recording, live work, film and television". i only questioned why you was not aware of this widely reported abnormal deal, considering you asserted yourself as someone that works within the industry.

i feel you did imply that robbie could have owed emi money following albums that underperformed, but thanks for clearing up the misunderstanding due to the way your previous post was worded.
gpk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-06-2013, 18:26
gilliedew
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,154
I just hope the baby turns out to be like Sapphie from Ab Fab to Robbies Edina, now that would teach him that drug taking is for losers.
gilliedew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-06-2013, 07:18
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,886
You mean all hes done is use his Baby to generate some publicity for his ego.
well i was thinking of money rather than ego. i suppose it's general promotion, but ultimately there are usually financial motives behind it
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-06-2013, 07:25
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,886
You're attempt at equating the public reaction to Glitter and Jacksons alleged and proved activities is ridiculous. Glitters
career was completely and utterly destroyed - Jacksons though tarnished was not . Again the facts speak for themselves $600-900million estate post death does not amount to a destroyed career . I'm not sure why you cant accept that the ability of Jackson to generate huge amounts of money was not destroyed by the court cases .
i'm not saying MJ's was tarnished to the extent that they couldn't generate huge sums, as clearly they did, but that his income potential was seriously impacted by it.

for example, and i'm sure this was made public, perhaps as part of the conrad murray case, but both MJ and AEG knew that they couldn't pull of a big US tour successfully after the child abuse case, so they choose to play the o2 in london instead as they thought the european audience would be more forgiving. so you have what was once one of the biggest selling and most popular artists who hadn't toured in about 10 or more years, and instead of playing enormodomes in the states to 80k audiences per night, he's down to playing less than a quarter of the size of audience instead. obviously that results in a vastly reduced income stream. if the child abuse case hadn't tarnished his reputation he could have done 10 nights in LA, 10 in chitown and 10 in NYC for example, in much larger venues than the o2. so less gigs and more cash
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-06-2013, 07:33
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,886
it wasn't common practise, but his deal in 2002 with emi did include profit sharing from touring, along with merchandising and sponsorship. it was something that was wildly reported at the time and his representatives claimed the deal was "respective elements of recording, live work, film and television". i only questioned why you was not aware of this widely reported abnormal deal, considering you asserted yourself as someone that works within the industry.

i feel you did imply that robbie could have owed emi money following albums that underperformed, but thanks for clearing up the misunderstanding due to the way your previous post was worded.
no, i was just speaking generally about contracts as you are referring to something that happened 10+ years ago, and with headlinging figures of 80m and $100m for acts like robbie, prince and REM the detail gets forgotten about.

i actually thought robs deal was around 99 as that's when i met him (and he was a dick in person, and that sentiment was shared by most of the crew - his band were very nice tho, but acted completely differently when rob was around, very sheepish), and i met prince and paul macartney on the same day and remember thing, wow i just shook hands with the most famous writer in the world who appears on more records than anyone else, and on top of that all the records prince and robbie sold, if only some of that would rub off on me.

ironically with all 3 of those cases, each artists popularity/sales dramatically declined like the deal was cursed. prince was one of the first if not the first to get a $100m deal, which was an advance of $10m for delivery of each album, with the intention of 1 per year, but prince delivered albums too fast which they didn't want and he got upset and went in a famous strop resulting in his records not selling. REM were at their peak when they did a similar $100m deal also with WB and the first album of that deal was a commercial flop, and so were the remaining albums although some of them were pretty good. again rob did the same, his albums just didn't sell as well as the first couple, but his tours were incredibly popular. the deals with prince and REM weren't tied into tours, those deals didn't really start until the 00's, so it sounds like robs could have been one of the first
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-06-2013, 11:03
Blockz99
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,244
i'm not saying MJ's was tarnished to the extent that they couldn't generate huge sums, as clearly they did, but that his income potential was seriously impacted by it.

for example, and i'm sure this was made public, perhaps as part of the conrad murray case, but both MJ and AEG knew that they couldn't pull of a big US tour successfully after the child abuse case, so they choose to play the o2 in london instead as they thought the european audience would be more forgiving. so you have what was once one of the biggest selling and most popular artists who hadn't toured in about 10 or more years, and instead of playing enormodomes in the states to 80k audiences per night, he's down to playing less than a quarter of the size of audience instead. obviously that results in a vastly reduced income stream. if the child abuse case hadn't tarnished his reputation he could have done 10 nights in LA, 10 in chitown and 10 in NYC for example, in much larger venues than the o2. so less gigs and more cash
Now your contradicting yourself in the your own post Its simple he was either able or not able to generate huges sums - facts prove he was able to generate huge sums as you now seem to be accepting Just accept the fact the the scandals didn't affect his ability to generate a lot of money. They may have affected his personal reputation in some markets but not his ability to generate huge sums of money.
Blockz99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-06-2013, 11:20
The Prumeister
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 16,911
no, i was just speaking generally about contracts as you are referring to something that happened 10+ years ago, and with headlinging figures of 80m and $100m for acts like robbie, prince and REM the detail gets forgotten about.

i actually thought robs deal was around 99 as that's when i met him (and he was a dick in person, and that sentiment was shared by most of the crew - his band were very nice tho, but acted completely differently when rob was around, very sheepish), and i met prince and paul macartney on the same day and remember thing, wow i just shook hands with the most famous writer in the world who appears on more records than anyone else, and on top of that all the records prince and robbie sold, if only some of that would rub off on me.

ironically with all 3 of those cases, each artists popularity/sales dramatically declined like the deal was cursed. prince was one of the first if not the first to get a $100m deal, which was an advance of $10m for delivery of each album, with the intention of 1 per year, but prince delivered albums too fast which they didn't want and he got upset and went in a famous strop resulting in his records not selling. REM were at their peak when they did a similar $100m deal also with WB and the first album of that deal was a commercial flop, and so were the remaining albums although some of them were pretty good. again rob did the same, his albums just didn't sell as well as the first couple, but his tours were incredibly popular. the deals with prince and REM weren't tied into tours, those deals didn't really start until the 00's, so it sounds like robs could have been one of the first




Managed to sort out your formatting then?
The Prumeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-06-2013, 11:54
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,886
Managed to sort out your formatting then?
that was posted with a different computer. i'll have to see if it does the same with this computer or not.

this is the start of a new paragraph, so i'll see if it works or not. why are you so bothered about the formatting of text? is the topic not of interest to you?
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-06-2013, 11:58
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,886
Now your contradicting yourself in the your own post Its simple he was either able or not able to generate huges sums - facts prove he was able to generate huge sums as you now seem to be accepting Just accept the fact the the scandals didn't affect his ability to generate a lot of money. They may have affected his personal reputation in some markets but not his ability to generate huge sums of money.
there is no contradiction. as i explained, the child abuse scandal did affect his income greatly, as instead of being able to play huge venues in america right after the court case, both MJ and AEG chose smaller venues in london instead as they didn't think america was ready for a tour so close to the court case. so the income potential was reduced.

similarly if robbie did something really stupid he could potentially go from playing stadiums to playing the smaller venues he played last year in the promo tour, or even arenas instead. you can still pull in good money from both, but simply not as much as a well selling stadium tour - based on the same number of shows
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-06-2013, 12:11
Blockz99
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,244
there is no contradiction. as i explained, the child abuse scandal did affect his income greatly, as instead of being able to play huge venues in america right after the court case, both MJ and AEG chose smaller venues in london instead as they didn't think america was ready for a tour so close to the court case. so the income potential was reduced.

similarly if robbie did something really stupid he could potentially go from playing stadiums to playing the smaller venues he played last year in the promo tour, or even arenas instead. you can still pull in good money from both, but simply not as much as a well selling stadium tour - based on the same number of shows


But you are ! ...you say the allegations didnt impct his abilitiy to generate huge sums and then at the end of the very same sentence you say that his income was severely impacted by it - you are either trolling or just arguing for the sake if it or just plain dumb - I'm not sure which one

I cant be bothered replying to you anymore ...your blindness to facts and the easy way with which you are happy to contradict what you are saying is now just too exasperating
Blockz99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-06-2013, 13:47
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,886
But you are ! ...you say the allegations didnt impct his abilitiy to generate huge sums and then at the end of the very same sentence you say that his income was severely impacted by it - you are either trolling or just arguing for the sake if it or just plain dumb - I'm not sure which one

I cant be bothered replying to you anymore ...your blindness to facts and the easy way with which you are happy to contradict what you are saying is now just too exasperating
they are two seperate things. it's really pretty simple. it's like saying he can still make a million, but can't make a billion, if you want me to put it into easier terms for you. the allegations seriously impacted his ability to make money from being able to sell out huge american venues to a single smaller uk venue instead, as a real world example. but that's got nothing to do with the topic. i'm glad you can't be bothered to argue about it further as it'll save me time in replying
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:58.