Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

Robbie Williams 'would buy drugs for his daughter'


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 25-06-2013, 09:48
Abriel
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,085
I surprised he can see so far into the future. I myself had all these plans about how it would be when my kids grew up. Well they are grown up now and all my plans for them have flown out the window. How does he know he will even be around when his daughter grows up? I am not being negative but 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.
for goodness sake he was asked a hypothetical question and gave a hypothetical answer based on the info available to him at the time
Abriel is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 25-06-2013, 12:31
Blockz99
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 860
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....
Blockz99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-06-2013, 12:35
Blockz99
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 860
Does no one else think he might have been having a joke?
sadly no
Blockz99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-06-2013, 12:37
Blockz99
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 860
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
Blockz99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-06-2013, 13:25
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,506
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
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-06-2013, 14:13
Cloudbusting
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Kent, England
Posts: 612
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.
Cloudbusting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-06-2013, 14:37
Blockz99
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 860
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 - 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.
Blockz99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-06-2013, 21:28
swordofomens
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 252
I wonder if Leah Betts family would find this funny? prick
swordofomens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-06-2013, 23:21
Georgiecats
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 6,164
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.
Georgiecats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-06-2013, 12:25
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,506
LOL No I dont know much about music but I do work within the music industrry - 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?
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-06-2013, 12:44
Blockz99
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 860
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.
Blockz99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-06-2013, 12:46
The Prumeister
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 16,513
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?
The Prumeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-06-2013, 13:43
Blockz99
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 860
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.
Blockz99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-06-2013, 15:31
L_Roberts
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 408
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.
L_Roberts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-06-2013, 16:12
GlassBalloon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,305
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.
GlassBalloon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-06-2013, 22:36
frankie_baby
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 987
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
frankie_baby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-06-2013, 13:06
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,506
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
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-06-2013, 13:07
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,506
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
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-06-2013, 13:10
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,506
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
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-06-2013, 13:55
Blockz99
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 860
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.
Blockz99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-06-2013, 13:58
Blockz99
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 860
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
Blockz99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-06-2013, 14:05
Blockz99
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 860
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.
Blockz99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-06-2013, 14:21
The Prumeister
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 16,513
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.
The Prumeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-06-2013, 15:08
gpk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Penryn, Falmouth, Cornwall.
Posts: 9,936
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.
gpk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-06-2013, 15:39
denial_orstupid
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 406
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 .
denial_orstupid is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:57.