Robbie Williams 'would buy drugs for his daughter'

13

Comments

  • Blockz99Blockz99 Posts: 5,045
    Forum Member
    unique wrote: »
    what's wrong with that? if he makes more money his family can have a better life. his offspring will inherit his wealth

    i bet most people would do the same if they could make money from it, but who wants to hear about regular joe's?

    What are you on about .....
    Him and his family are hardly starving on the streets are they ?
    Hes worth and approx £80million. will never need to work again His daughter will want for nothing. This is not about him needing to make money from using his daughter its about using his baby daughter to get some free publicity to feed his ego....
  • Blockz99Blockz99 Posts: 5,045
    Forum Member
    Does no one else think he might have been having a joke?

    sadly no
  • Blockz99Blockz99 Posts: 5,045
    Forum Member
    i4u wrote: »
    Yeah Robbie, how you going to do that? Only buy illegally manufactured drugs that have official approval?

    Or you going to accept the word of that nice man who runs a drug cartel in Columbia or Mexico who only kills innocent people because they refuse to help him in his trade.

    Robbie you're a dork, at least you can afford to pay for your daugther's rehab while villagers in South America pay with their lives.

    Thank you and spot on :)
  • uniqueunique Posts: 12,360
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Blockz99 wrote: »
    What are you on about .....
    Him and his family are hardly starving on the streets are they ?
    Hes worth and approx £80million. will never need to work again His daughter will want for nothing. This is not about him needing to make money from using his daughter its about using his baby daughter to get some free publicity to feed his ego....
    i guess you don't know much about pop/rock stars. just look at sly stone, george clinton, etc etc etc. one minute you have money, a few years later you don't. both elvis and michael jackson had lots of money at one point, and both were near bankruptcy when they died. and then just look at the jackson clan now.

    the £80m worth is just some nonsense figure based on this that and the next thing, a load of guessing and ultimately ending up with a figure that's meaningless. sure he will have a few quid in the bank and royalties will keep coming in, but he could royally screw up, struggle for money and sell his royalties. he could damage his back on tour and get addicted to drugs like michael jackson, not work properly and get blow through his money. it happens to people in that line of work
  • CloudbustingCloudbusting Posts: 650
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Baz O wrote: »
    look what happened to Michael Jackson, I don't think he thought he wouldn't be around when his kids got older.

    4 years today RIP Michael.

    Has it really been four years already? Time really does fly.
  • Blockz99Blockz99 Posts: 5,045
    Forum Member
    unique wrote: »
    i guess you don't know much about pop/rock stars. just look at sly stone, george clinton, etc etc etc. one minute you have money, a few years later you don't. both elvis and michael jackson had lots of money at one point, and both were near bankruptcy when they died. and then just look at the jackson clan now.

    the £80m worth is just some nonsense figure based on this that and the next thing, a load of guessing and ultimately ending up with a figure that's meaningless. sure he will have a few quid in the bank and royalties will keep coming in, but he could royally screw up, struggle for money and sell his royalties. he could damage his back on tour and get addicted to drugs like michael jackson, not work properly and get blow through his money. it happens to people in that line of work

    LOL No I dont know much about music but I do work within the music industrry - :D I'm well aware of the tragic stories of fortunes won and fortunes lost in the music business - this happens in all walks of life not just the music business.
    Its interesting to note that Elvis's and Jackson's kids are far wealthier Kids after their dads died than before. Both Artists were in deep debt before their deaths but their deaths gave wealth to their estates .

    Robbie Williams signed a 6 album deal with EMI on 02/10/2002 worth an £80 million. Though this sounds like a lot today but at the time was not unusual and there were other large signings around this time - hey but don't let some facts get in the way of your argument.
  • swordofomensswordofomens Posts: 267
    Forum Member
    I wonder if Leah Betts family would find this funny? prick
  • GeorgiecatsGeorgiecats Posts: 6,628
    Forum Member
    Most parents are actually looking for a good life for their children and it does seem a silly remark to make when your child is still a baby.

    But because he has an addictive personality she could well turn out that way but why would you even want to think about it? I hope she takes after her mother! Celebrities don't live in the real world anyway and she'll mix with other celebrity privileged kids and probably have access to everything and anything.

    He won't be able to control what she gets, who she sees or where she goes. He needs to remember that.
  • uniqueunique Posts: 12,360
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Blockz99 wrote: »
    LOL No I dont know much about music but I do work within the music industrry - :D I'm well aware of the tragic stories of fortunes won and fortunes lost in the music business - this happens in all walks of life not just the music business.
    Its interesting to note that Elvis's and Jackson's kids are far wealthier Kids after their dads died than before. Both Artists were in deep debt before their deaths but their deaths gave wealth to their estates .

    Robbie Williams signed a 6 album deal with EMI on 02/10/2002 worth an £80 million. Though this sounds like a lot today but at the time was not unusual and there were other large signings around this time - hey but don't let some facts get in the way of your argument.
    thousands of people work in the industry, but just like any other industry, there are different levels of understanding that each individual has. some will be knowledable and be specialists in some areas, and not have a clue about other areas where someone else will be an expert and not have a clue about what the first one does.
    take contracts for example, these £80m "deals" that are banded about are typically just a load of waffle intended to create publicity, and i'm not sure if any of the notable huge ones paid out anything like the headlining figure, as usually they are awarded at the height of an artists popularity and it's downhill from then onwards, and robbie was a perfect example of this, same with REM and prince, who had similar "100 million" type deals. the way they work is there is an agreement to advance an agreed sum of money in exchange for the delivery of an album. this advance is essentially a loan that can be legally required to be repaid, and it's offset against future profits on sales of records/cds. a figure like 100 million will relate to something like 10 albums, so an advance of 10 million (dollars usually as most deals of this size are american based) is given per album delivered. you don't deliver an album, you don't get any money. the delivered album doesn't sell, you owe the record company a lot of money. that's the long and short of it. robbie didn't sign a deal and get 80 million of anything transferred into his bank account. and you must surely know how his record sales declined in the last decade, partly due to piracy, partly due to the declining quality of his music.
    elvis was nearly bankrupt like MJ when he died, as both artists were spending money like crazy but weren't doing anything, or at least enough, to bring in sufficient income to cover the outgoings. they were spending like they were still the big stars they once were. when both died, the spending stopped, and instead of the insanity of drink and drug addicted popstars looking after finances, professionals were brought in. lisa marie made the decision to open gracelands to fans to bring in money to avoid the estate going bankrupt, and turned around the finances greatly. the jackson family however seem far more interested in arguing with each other and 4 years after his death they've missed the boat greatly, however the child abuse scandals had cause irrepairable harm to the estates finances. and that's another thing that can happen. you live your life based on a particular set of regular income from royalties and a scandal comes along and dries that up, then you burn through the money in the bank, perhaps turning to drink and drugs to self medicate and get passed the problems, and burn up money even quicker. so "his worth" being £80m means nothing. it's just a publicity headline just like the one being discussed. it gets free press, people talking about it online etc, all for free, and helping to generate more income. good eh?
  • Blockz99Blockz99 Posts: 5,045
    Forum Member
    unique wrote: »
    thousands of people work in the industry, but just like any other industry, there are different levels of understanding that each individual has. some will be knowledable and be specialists in some areas, and not have a clue about other areas where someone else will be an expert and not have a clue about what the first one does.
    take contracts for example, these £80m "deals" that are banded about are typically just a load of waffle intended to create publicity, and i'm not sure if any of the notable huge ones paid out anything like the headlining figure, as usually they are awarded at the height of an artists popularity and it's downhill from then onwards, and robbie was a perfect example of this, same with REM and prince, who had similar "100 million" type deals. the way they work is there is an agreement to advance an agreed sum of money in exchange for the delivery of an album. this advance is essentially a loan that can be legally required to be repaid, and it's offset against future profits on sales of records/cds. a figure like 100 million will relate to something like 10 albums, so an advance of 10 million (dollars usually as most deals of this size are american based) is given per album delivered. you don't deliver an album, you don't get any money. the delivered album doesn't sell, you owe the record company a lot of money. that's the long and short of it. robbie didn't sign a deal and get 80 million of anything transferred into his bank account. and you must surely know how his record sales declined in the last decade, partly due to piracy, partly due to the declining quality of his music.
    elvis was nearly bankrupt like MJ when he died, as both artists were spending money like crazy but weren't doing anything, or at least enough, to bring in sufficient income to cover the outgoings. they were spending like they were still the big stars they once were. when both died, the spending stopped, and instead of the insanity of drink and drug addicted popstars looking after finances, professionals were brought in. lisa marie made the decision to open gracelands to fans to bring in money to avoid the estate going bankrupt, and turned around the finances greatly. the jackson family however seem far more interested in arguing with each other and 4 years after his death they've missed the boat greatly, however the child abuse scandals had cause irrepairable harm to the estates finances. and that's another thing that can happen. you live your life based on a particular set of regular income from royalties and a scandal comes along and dries that up, then you burn through the money in the bank, perhaps turning to drink and drugs to self medicate and get passed the problems, and burn up money even quicker. so "his worth" being £80m means nothing. it's just a publicity headline just like the one being discussed. it gets free press, people talking about it online etc, all for free, and helping to generate more income. good eh?


    And your point is ? Thanks for the patronising explanation of how the music industry works my gosh I thought EMI just gave Robbie a checque with £80 million written on it.
  • The PrumeisterThe Prumeister Posts: 22,398
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    unique wrote: »
    thousands of people work in the industry, but just like any other industry, there are different levels of understanding that each individual has. some will be knowledable and be specialists in some areas, and not have a clue about other areas where someone else will be an expert and not have a clue about what the first one does.
    take contracts for example, these £80m "deals" that are banded about are typically just a load of waffle intended to create publicity, and i'm not sure if any of the notable huge ones paid out anything like the headlining figure, as usually they are awarded at the height of an artists popularity and it's downhill from then onwards, and robbie was a perfect example of this, same with REM and prince, who had similar "100 million" type deals. the way they work is there is an agreement to advance an agreed sum of money in exchange for the delivery of an album. this advance is essentially a loan that can be legally required to be repaid, and it's offset against future profits on sales of records/cds. a figure like 100 million will relate to something like 10 albums, so an advance of 10 million (dollars usually as most deals of this size are american based) is given per album delivered. you don't deliver an album, you don't get any money. the delivered album doesn't sell, you owe the record company a lot of money. that's the long and short of it. robbie didn't sign a deal and get 80 million of anything transferred into his bank account. and you must surely know how his record sales declined in the last decade, partly due to piracy, partly due to the declining quality of his music.
    elvis was nearly bankrupt like MJ when he died, as both artists were spending money like crazy but weren't doing anything, or at least enough, to bring in sufficient income to cover the outgoings. they were spending like they were still the big stars they once were. when both died, the spending stopped, and instead of the insanity of drink and drug addicted popstars looking after finances, professionals were brought in. lisa marie made the decision to open gracelands to fans to bring in money to avoid the estate going bankrupt, and turned around the finances greatly. the jackson family however seem far more interested in arguing with each other and 4 years after his death they've missed the boat greatly, however the child abuse scandals had cause irrepairable harm to the estates finances. and that's another thing that can happen. you live your life based on a particular set of regular income from royalties and a scandal comes along and dries that up, then you burn through the money in the bank, perhaps turning to drink and drugs to self medicate and get passed the problems, and burn up money even quicker. so "his worth" being £80m means nothing. it's just a publicity headline just like the one being discussed. it gets free press, people talking about it online etc, all for free, and helping to generate more income. good eh?




    I'm sorry - I genuinely cannot read this - it's hurting my eyes.

    Ever heard of paragraphs?
  • Blockz99Blockz99 Posts: 5,045
    Forum Member
    unique wrote: »
    thousands of people work in the industry, but just like any other industry, there are different levels of understanding that each individual has. some will be knowledable and be specialists in some areas, and not have a clue about other areas where someone else will be an expert and not have a clue about what the first one does.
    take contracts for example, these £80m "deals" that are banded about are typically just a load of waffle intended to create publicity, and i'm not sure if any of the notable huge ones paid out anything like the headlining figure, as usually they are awarded at the height of an artists popularity and it's downhill from then onwards, and robbie was a perfect example of this, same with REM and prince, who had similar "100 million" type deals. the way they work is there is an agreement to advance an agreed sum of money in exchange for the delivery of an album. this advance is essentially a loan that can be legally required to be repaid, and it's offset against future profits on sales of records/cds. a figure like 100 million will relate to something like 10 albums, so an advance of 10 million (dollars usually as most deals of this size are american based) is given per album delivered. you don't deliver an album, you don't get any money. the delivered album doesn't sell, you owe the record company a lot of money. that's the long and short of it. robbie didn't sign a deal and get 80 million of anything transferred into his bank account. and you must surely know how his record sales declined in the last decade, partly due to piracy, partly due to the declining quality of his music.
    elvis was nearly bankrupt like MJ when he died, as both artists were spending money like crazy but weren't doing anything, or at least enough, to bring in sufficient income to cover the outgoings. they were spending like they were still the big stars they once were. when both died, the spending stopped, and instead of the insanity of drink and drug addicted popstars looking after finances, professionals were brought in. lisa marie made the decision to open gracelands to fans to bring in money to avoid the estate going bankrupt, and turned around the finances greatly. the jackson family however seem far more interested in arguing with each other and 4 years after his death they've missed the boat greatly, however the child abuse scandals had cause irrepairable harm to the estates finances. and that's another thing that can happen. you live your life based on a particular set of regular income from royalties and a scandal comes along and dries that up, then you burn through the money in the bank, perhaps turning to drink and drugs to self medicate and get passed the problems, and burn up money even quicker. so "his worth" being £80m means nothing. it's just a publicity headline just like the one being discussed. it gets free press, people talking about it online etc, all for free, and helping to generate more income. good eh?


    now your just making things up !...Michael Jacksons estate earned $179 million in the year after his death. Total generated income since his death is somewhere between $ 600-900 million dollars depending on who you believe.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 414
    Forum Member
    The guy is a genius. What kid would want to to take drugs with their nearly 60 year old dad? It instantly makes something curious into something extremely uncool.
  • GlassBalloonGlassBalloon Posts: 2,571
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I seem to remember him saying before his daughter was born that he hoped she would grow up to be a wild party animal type. I think Robbie is a tad on the moronic side.
  • frankie_babyfrankie_baby Posts: 1,100
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I wonder if Leah Betts family would find this funny? prick

    Maybe if they'd looked in to things and talked to their daughter about how to take drugs safely she wouldn't have died from drinking like 20 pints of water in 5 minutes
  • uniqueunique Posts: 12,360
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Blockz99 wrote: »
    now your just making things up !...Michael Jacksons estate earned $179 million in the year after his death. Total generated income since his death is somewhere between $ 600-900 million dollars depending on who you believe.
    i'm not making things up. imagine how much more he could have made if millions of people didn't think of him as a peadophile junkie? if he had remained a respected artist the sums made could have been considerably more
  • uniqueunique Posts: 12,360
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'm sorry - I genuinely cannot read this - it's hurting my eyes.

    Ever heard of paragraphs?
    don't read it then. it's in paragraphs, but there is some issue with this site that doesn't format the text properly once posted
  • uniqueunique Posts: 12,360
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Blockz99 wrote: »
    And your point is ? Thanks for the patronising explanation of how the music industry works my gosh I thought EMI just gave Robbie a checque with £80 million written on it.
    patronising? nothing patronising about it. you should know that most people simply arent aware of this information. i have no idea who you are or what you do or what you know or don't know. if you did know how it works, you surely wouldn't need to question what i said, and certainly not in the patronising manner you did. i work in the industry too, and i'm a professional and get paid for what i do. i know that "worth" means nothing in these respects. you can have money today and lose it all tomorrow or piss it all away in a short period. even if you invest your earnings your investments can go up as well as down and you can still blow through those like MJ did
  • Blockz99Blockz99 Posts: 5,045
    Forum Member
    unique wrote: »
    i'm not making things up. imagine how much more he could have made if millions of people didn't think of him as a peadophile junkie? if he had remained a respected artist the sums made could have been considerably more

    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.
  • Blockz99Blockz99 Posts: 5,045
    Forum Member
    unique wrote: »
    patronising? nothing patronising about it. you should know that most people simply arent aware of this information. i have no idea who you are or what you do or what you know or don't know. if you did know how it works, you surely wouldn't need to question what i said, and certainly not in the patronising manner you did. i work in the industry too, and i'm a professional and get paid for what i do. i know that "worth" means nothing in these respects. you can have money today and lose it all tomorrow or piss it all away in a short period. even if you invest your earnings your investments can go up as well as down and you can still blow through those like MJ did


    But you know enough to write this about me....
    i guess you don't know much about pop/rock stars
  • Blockz99Blockz99 Posts: 5,045
    Forum Member
    unique wrote: »
    what's wrong with that? if he makes more money his family can have a better life. his offspring will inherit his wealth

    i bet most people would do the same if they could make money from it, but who wants to hear about regular joe's?

    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.
  • The PrumeisterThe Prumeister Posts: 22,398
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    unique wrote: »
    don't read it then. it's in paragraphs, but there is some issue with this site that doesn't format the text properly once posted



    No there isn't. Everyone else manages it.
  • gpkgpk Posts: 10,206
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    unique wrote: »
    patronising? nothing patronising about it. you should know that most people simply arent aware of this information. i have no idea who you are or what you do or what you know or don't know. if you did know how it works, you surely wouldn't need to question what i said, and certainly not in the patronising manner you did. i work in the industry too, and i'm a professional and get paid for what i do. i know that "worth" means nothing in these respects. you can have money today and lose it all tomorrow or piss it all away in a short period. even if you invest your earnings your investments can go up as well as down and you can still blow through those like MJ did

    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.

    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. however, i do think his deal with emi was beneficial to both parties financially and i would doubt robbie actually owed emi money following under performing albums, which you implied in post 60.
  • denial_orstupiddenial_orstupid Posts: 665
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Blockz99 wrote: »
    But you know enough to write this about me....
    i guess you don't know much about pop/rock stars

    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 .
  • Blockz99Blockz99 Posts: 5,045
    Forum Member
    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
Sign In or Register to comment.