This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Seltaeb article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Consensus per this RfC closure and this RfM closure is to use "the Beatles" mid-sentence. |
![]() | Seltaeb has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
The start.-- andreasegde ( talk) 16:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
A page number for "Norman, Philip" would be good.-- andreasegde ( talk) 18:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be called "Seltaeb" instead of Nicky Byrne?-- andreasegde ( talk) 16:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Seltaeb it is, then.-- andreasegde ( talk) 13:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I probably won't do much more as all those numbers make my brain hurt, and it's slightly depressing to read about how massive the rip-off was. Have fun.-- andreasegde ( talk) 20:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
It was the original Rock 'n Roll Swindle. After looking at the figures I now think about the page I found (but can't again :( that talked about the 2 threatening phone calls saying Epstein would have an accident soon, and that after Epstein was dead four NEMS people sat round not knowing what to do, when the phone rings and a newspaper asks if it's true about a tipoff that Epstein is seriously ill. Hmmm... There were millions of dollars involved. I'll have a look at Spitz, and see if the calls are mentioned.-- andreasegde ( talk) 13:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I changed the infobox to a business one.-- andreasegde ( talk) 14:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
...I think it is possible to have a perspective as well. For example, John thinks it “absurd” that Seltaeb gets mentioned. He thinks it’s not important - that’s his opinion. I believe it is relevant and so that’s my opinion. Neither view changes the facts though. O.K: on May 13th 1967 Epstein was admitted to the Priory Clinic in Roehampton to undergo treatment for insomnia, agitation, anxiety and depression. The treatment was generally regarded as unsuccessful. He was also extremely worried that The Beatles would not renew their contracts with him in the Autumn, quote Peter Brown: “ … he [Epstein] was worried by what he saw as The Beatles growing discontent. They [The Beatles] were slowly hearing bits and pieces of the Seltaeb fiasco…”. There’s a lot of that sort of stuff so I put it to you that Epstein’s problems were made worse by the Seltaeb episode. I think we can establish that Seltaeb made him worry that The Beatles wouldn’t renew their contracts, and that thought made him depressed. So it was part of the chain. If he was depressed, then Seltaeb had to be a contributing factor, not saying it was the only one though. Epstein’s deceit can easily be cited. “… they [NEMS] had given it away! An incomprehensible sum signed away for nothing! He wondered what The Beatles would say when they found out. He decided it best they know nothing about it for the time being (he never told them) and plotted to keep it from them”. Peter Brown. But it will be elsewhere too. -- Patthedog ( talk) 16:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
BTW, this article is still very much work in progress. I’m not sure why its under pressure to be perfect in every way right this minute. Isn’t normal procedure to tag anything that needs citing? Good points have been made and will be digested and taken into account. And there’s nothing to stop others helping out.-- Patthedog ( talk) 17:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Your edit looks good to me. Thanks PL290. -- Patthedog ( talk) 09:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I think this is extremely close to a GA rating. Any takers?-- andreasegde ( talk) 12:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I was being a bit of a coward here. I’ve no idea what’s involved - I’ve read it can be a bloodbath. Tell me what I can do to help.-- Patthedog ( talk) 22:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that Byrne left the percentages blank 'cos he was gonna haggle about them a bit, but lost his nerve when Jacobs asked him what percentage he should write. Byrne then said 10%,and Jacobs wrote it in. This is where it gets interesting: I think Byrne thought Jacobs was asking how much he (Byrne) was going to get, but Jacobs really meant what NEMS were going to get (still with me?...) Jacobs asks Byrne, "What percentage should I put in here?" Byrne says, "10%", and Jacobs puts the percentage in the NEMS box, thinking that is what Byrne was giving NEMS.
It was a massive mistake on Jacobs' part not to know about percentages, but I think it was more shocking than that. I'm surmising that Byrne got the contract back and saw that he'd got 90% and not 10%. He must have been dancing on the ceiling. So what better story than to say he (Byrne) had engineered it like that?
No wonder Jacobs topped himself, and Byrne built the reputation of a big-time hustler. Nobody in his right mind would ask for 90% - it would have been taking the piss, hence the fake story.-- andreasegde ( talk) 18:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
"as they later went on to demonstrate with Apple". Hold on, that's a great line to put in, as Lennon and McCartney both had disparaging views on Epstein as businessman. The kettles calling the pot black. -- andreasegde ( talk) 20:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm surprised that the article still doesn't mention this way of looking at it, as I seem to recall it was presented that way in one of the first Beatles biographies I read (I forget which, but it may have been Peter Brown's book " The Love You Make"). The story proffered was definitely that Epstein was being offered all the proceeds minus 10%, but that he thought he was being offered 10%. I can't have been the only one to have read this account. Anyone? I doubt I got the idea from this thread as I wasn't active here much in 2009.
On the other hand, "Baby You're a Rich Man: Suing the Beatles for Fun and Profit" page 19, says that Byrne was asking for 90% and was amazed that Jacobs didn't question it. -- kingboyk ( talk) 01:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I think this sentence, "The court case and its effect was estimated to have lost NEMS and The Beatles approximately $100,000,000" should read, "approximately $100,000,000, give or take a few quid and some spare change." (Don't worry, I'm only joking... :))-- andreasegde ( talk) 20:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
It's looking very good now.-- andreasegde ( talk) 22:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I was bang right, for once. You never can tell...-- andreasegde ( talk) 21:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
This bouncing between dollars and pounds is confusing. What to do? Only dollars (as it was an American-based company) or pounds (because NEMS controlled it/had a stake in it) or a link stating the difference between dollars/pounds then, and now? Don't ask me, I'm totally crap at maths.-- andreasegde ( talk) 19:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've done the money stuff to dollars and what it's worth today, but it made my brain twirl, my jaw drop and my eyes pop out. As Marlon Brando said in Apocalypse Now, "The hor-ror... the hor-ror..." -- andreasegde ( talk) 13:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
There I was thinking that Byrne was some "young socialite", looking a little bit like Brian Jones in blue velvet jacket and ash-blond bouffant hair, and I found out that he was born around 1928 (see ref about him living in Trowbridge). He was around 36 when he got the Seltaeb contract, meaning he was six/seven years older than Epstein. He probably wore a tweed jacket with leather patches on the the elbows and smoked a pipe. A young socialite, my arse...-- andreasegde ( talk) 12:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Hattie Jacques would have to be his mum, but I love the idea of Charles Hawtrey as Lord Peregrine Eliot! A possible cameo appearance could be Liberace as Allen Klein? It couldn't be more ridiculous than what actually happened anyway. -- Patthedog ( talk) 20:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Any chance of sneaking another in? The photo police can't really complain if the business was scuppered back in the 60s.-- andreasegde ( talk) 16:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I have just read that Byrne charged 10% commission to the merchandisers for a licence, meaning he got 10 dollars out of every hundred, and then gave 10% of that to NEMS, which was.......... 1 dollar. It would make a "steely eyed missile man" accountant weep...-- andreasegde ( talk) 15:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
From The Beatles Diary (Miles): January 27 1967 - The Beatles and Brian Epstein signed a new nine-year worldwide recording contract with EMI Records, updating their previous deal, which had expired the previous day.
From the article: Epstein feared that The Beatles would not renew their contracts with him—due to expire in the Autumn of 1967—if they discovered the truth about Seltaeb.[29][30]
Something's not right here...-- andreasegde ( talk) 17:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I get it now. Management contract and recording contract, but why would he be worried about his own contract if they signed a nine-year worldwide recording contract with EMI? They trusted him on that one, even though it was probably crap...-- andreasegde ( talk) 17:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm having a problem with Jacobs' death. Was it in 1969, or 1967 (two years/a few weeks/one week after Epstein's)? I have seen conflicting reports.-- andreasegde ( talk) 20:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
"The biggest key was the 25 percent clause that Brian had hidden from them. When he had renegotiated their royalty deal with EMI (and with Capitol in the United States), he had inserted a clause guaranteeing that 25 percent of all Beatle record royalties would continue to go to NEMS for nine years, even if the Beatles didn't renew their management contract with Brian. The Beatles had signed the contract without scrutinizing the fine print." (Flippo, p. 244).
No need for him to be worried at all.-- andreasegde ( talk) 13:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Nice article overall but just a few issues to clear up on.
O.K. Reworked the lead section - hopefully addressing the sprucing matter. Andreasegde, what do you think about removing the current monetary examples? I took out the first one, but just wonder if that one should stay - to make the point, but all the others could go. -- Patthedog ( talk) 10:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at this, Patthedog, usually a reviewer puts a note on my page. I had conversion tables in a few weeks ago, but someone came along and made them as they are now. I don't mind if all if today's values go, to be honest. Just leave the original 60s amounts, which are good enough.-- andreasegde ( talk) 19:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I have just cleaned the books. I had to take three or four out, but all the rest are used as refs, even if only once.-- andreasegde ( talk) 19:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I have also just cleaned the "money today", because they were substantial sums back then, and are quoted as that, so using software or "rounding the numbers out" (an editor's comments) just befuddles the reader, as I think now.-- andreasegde ( talk) 19:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Have put a line under the info box photo.-- andreasegde ( talk) 19:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The refs, such as "p45" were agreed upon by The Beatles Project, as they simplified them.-- andreasegde ( talk) 19:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Glad to pass the article now. That wasn't so bad was it? -- Brad ( talk) 22:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WT:BEATLES#Craig Cross.
Ojorojo (
talk) 18:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC) —
Ojorojo (
talk)
18:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
After reading the article I'm not entirely clear on how or why Seltaeb no longer control the rights to Beatles merchandise, nor when that happened.
The article tells us that "Epstein accused Seltaeb of not accounting properly, and cancelled its power to grant licences" and that this was subject to litigation which Epstein lost but that the judgement was set-aside. Did the set-aside give legal authority to Epstein cancelling Seltaeb's authority to licence? When did this set-aside happen and when did Epstein set up Maximus Enterprises?
Also, I may be wrong but I think Beatles merchandise is now licenced by Apple Corps. A sentence or two telling us where the rights flowed through to the present day would be most welcome.
Other than that - excellent article, a well-deserved GA. It's a pity Andrew is no longer editing and had a (perfectly understandable) phobia of FAR as this would have made for a fascinating Featured Article. -- kingboyk ( talk) 00:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Seltaeb article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Consensus per this RfC closure and this RfM closure is to use "the Beatles" mid-sentence. |
![]() | Seltaeb has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
The start.-- andreasegde ( talk) 16:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
A page number for "Norman, Philip" would be good.-- andreasegde ( talk) 18:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be called "Seltaeb" instead of Nicky Byrne?-- andreasegde ( talk) 16:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Seltaeb it is, then.-- andreasegde ( talk) 13:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I probably won't do much more as all those numbers make my brain hurt, and it's slightly depressing to read about how massive the rip-off was. Have fun.-- andreasegde ( talk) 20:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
It was the original Rock 'n Roll Swindle. After looking at the figures I now think about the page I found (but can't again :( that talked about the 2 threatening phone calls saying Epstein would have an accident soon, and that after Epstein was dead four NEMS people sat round not knowing what to do, when the phone rings and a newspaper asks if it's true about a tipoff that Epstein is seriously ill. Hmmm... There were millions of dollars involved. I'll have a look at Spitz, and see if the calls are mentioned.-- andreasegde ( talk) 13:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I changed the infobox to a business one.-- andreasegde ( talk) 14:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
...I think it is possible to have a perspective as well. For example, John thinks it “absurd” that Seltaeb gets mentioned. He thinks it’s not important - that’s his opinion. I believe it is relevant and so that’s my opinion. Neither view changes the facts though. O.K: on May 13th 1967 Epstein was admitted to the Priory Clinic in Roehampton to undergo treatment for insomnia, agitation, anxiety and depression. The treatment was generally regarded as unsuccessful. He was also extremely worried that The Beatles would not renew their contracts with him in the Autumn, quote Peter Brown: “ … he [Epstein] was worried by what he saw as The Beatles growing discontent. They [The Beatles] were slowly hearing bits and pieces of the Seltaeb fiasco…”. There’s a lot of that sort of stuff so I put it to you that Epstein’s problems were made worse by the Seltaeb episode. I think we can establish that Seltaeb made him worry that The Beatles wouldn’t renew their contracts, and that thought made him depressed. So it was part of the chain. If he was depressed, then Seltaeb had to be a contributing factor, not saying it was the only one though. Epstein’s deceit can easily be cited. “… they [NEMS] had given it away! An incomprehensible sum signed away for nothing! He wondered what The Beatles would say when they found out. He decided it best they know nothing about it for the time being (he never told them) and plotted to keep it from them”. Peter Brown. But it will be elsewhere too. -- Patthedog ( talk) 16:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
BTW, this article is still very much work in progress. I’m not sure why its under pressure to be perfect in every way right this minute. Isn’t normal procedure to tag anything that needs citing? Good points have been made and will be digested and taken into account. And there’s nothing to stop others helping out.-- Patthedog ( talk) 17:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Your edit looks good to me. Thanks PL290. -- Patthedog ( talk) 09:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I think this is extremely close to a GA rating. Any takers?-- andreasegde ( talk) 12:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I was being a bit of a coward here. I’ve no idea what’s involved - I’ve read it can be a bloodbath. Tell me what I can do to help.-- Patthedog ( talk) 22:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that Byrne left the percentages blank 'cos he was gonna haggle about them a bit, but lost his nerve when Jacobs asked him what percentage he should write. Byrne then said 10%,and Jacobs wrote it in. This is where it gets interesting: I think Byrne thought Jacobs was asking how much he (Byrne) was going to get, but Jacobs really meant what NEMS were going to get (still with me?...) Jacobs asks Byrne, "What percentage should I put in here?" Byrne says, "10%", and Jacobs puts the percentage in the NEMS box, thinking that is what Byrne was giving NEMS.
It was a massive mistake on Jacobs' part not to know about percentages, but I think it was more shocking than that. I'm surmising that Byrne got the contract back and saw that he'd got 90% and not 10%. He must have been dancing on the ceiling. So what better story than to say he (Byrne) had engineered it like that?
No wonder Jacobs topped himself, and Byrne built the reputation of a big-time hustler. Nobody in his right mind would ask for 90% - it would have been taking the piss, hence the fake story.-- andreasegde ( talk) 18:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
"as they later went on to demonstrate with Apple". Hold on, that's a great line to put in, as Lennon and McCartney both had disparaging views on Epstein as businessman. The kettles calling the pot black. -- andreasegde ( talk) 20:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm surprised that the article still doesn't mention this way of looking at it, as I seem to recall it was presented that way in one of the first Beatles biographies I read (I forget which, but it may have been Peter Brown's book " The Love You Make"). The story proffered was definitely that Epstein was being offered all the proceeds minus 10%, but that he thought he was being offered 10%. I can't have been the only one to have read this account. Anyone? I doubt I got the idea from this thread as I wasn't active here much in 2009.
On the other hand, "Baby You're a Rich Man: Suing the Beatles for Fun and Profit" page 19, says that Byrne was asking for 90% and was amazed that Jacobs didn't question it. -- kingboyk ( talk) 01:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I think this sentence, "The court case and its effect was estimated to have lost NEMS and The Beatles approximately $100,000,000" should read, "approximately $100,000,000, give or take a few quid and some spare change." (Don't worry, I'm only joking... :))-- andreasegde ( talk) 20:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
It's looking very good now.-- andreasegde ( talk) 22:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I was bang right, for once. You never can tell...-- andreasegde ( talk) 21:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
This bouncing between dollars and pounds is confusing. What to do? Only dollars (as it was an American-based company) or pounds (because NEMS controlled it/had a stake in it) or a link stating the difference between dollars/pounds then, and now? Don't ask me, I'm totally crap at maths.-- andreasegde ( talk) 19:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've done the money stuff to dollars and what it's worth today, but it made my brain twirl, my jaw drop and my eyes pop out. As Marlon Brando said in Apocalypse Now, "The hor-ror... the hor-ror..." -- andreasegde ( talk) 13:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
There I was thinking that Byrne was some "young socialite", looking a little bit like Brian Jones in blue velvet jacket and ash-blond bouffant hair, and I found out that he was born around 1928 (see ref about him living in Trowbridge). He was around 36 when he got the Seltaeb contract, meaning he was six/seven years older than Epstein. He probably wore a tweed jacket with leather patches on the the elbows and smoked a pipe. A young socialite, my arse...-- andreasegde ( talk) 12:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Hattie Jacques would have to be his mum, but I love the idea of Charles Hawtrey as Lord Peregrine Eliot! A possible cameo appearance could be Liberace as Allen Klein? It couldn't be more ridiculous than what actually happened anyway. -- Patthedog ( talk) 20:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Any chance of sneaking another in? The photo police can't really complain if the business was scuppered back in the 60s.-- andreasegde ( talk) 16:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I have just read that Byrne charged 10% commission to the merchandisers for a licence, meaning he got 10 dollars out of every hundred, and then gave 10% of that to NEMS, which was.......... 1 dollar. It would make a "steely eyed missile man" accountant weep...-- andreasegde ( talk) 15:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
From The Beatles Diary (Miles): January 27 1967 - The Beatles and Brian Epstein signed a new nine-year worldwide recording contract with EMI Records, updating their previous deal, which had expired the previous day.
From the article: Epstein feared that The Beatles would not renew their contracts with him—due to expire in the Autumn of 1967—if they discovered the truth about Seltaeb.[29][30]
Something's not right here...-- andreasegde ( talk) 17:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I get it now. Management contract and recording contract, but why would he be worried about his own contract if they signed a nine-year worldwide recording contract with EMI? They trusted him on that one, even though it was probably crap...-- andreasegde ( talk) 17:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm having a problem with Jacobs' death. Was it in 1969, or 1967 (two years/a few weeks/one week after Epstein's)? I have seen conflicting reports.-- andreasegde ( talk) 20:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
"The biggest key was the 25 percent clause that Brian had hidden from them. When he had renegotiated their royalty deal with EMI (and with Capitol in the United States), he had inserted a clause guaranteeing that 25 percent of all Beatle record royalties would continue to go to NEMS for nine years, even if the Beatles didn't renew their management contract with Brian. The Beatles had signed the contract without scrutinizing the fine print." (Flippo, p. 244).
No need for him to be worried at all.-- andreasegde ( talk) 13:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Nice article overall but just a few issues to clear up on.
O.K. Reworked the lead section - hopefully addressing the sprucing matter. Andreasegde, what do you think about removing the current monetary examples? I took out the first one, but just wonder if that one should stay - to make the point, but all the others could go. -- Patthedog ( talk) 10:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at this, Patthedog, usually a reviewer puts a note on my page. I had conversion tables in a few weeks ago, but someone came along and made them as they are now. I don't mind if all if today's values go, to be honest. Just leave the original 60s amounts, which are good enough.-- andreasegde ( talk) 19:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I have just cleaned the books. I had to take three or four out, but all the rest are used as refs, even if only once.-- andreasegde ( talk) 19:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I have also just cleaned the "money today", because they were substantial sums back then, and are quoted as that, so using software or "rounding the numbers out" (an editor's comments) just befuddles the reader, as I think now.-- andreasegde ( talk) 19:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Have put a line under the info box photo.-- andreasegde ( talk) 19:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The refs, such as "p45" were agreed upon by The Beatles Project, as they simplified them.-- andreasegde ( talk) 19:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Glad to pass the article now. That wasn't so bad was it? -- Brad ( talk) 22:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WT:BEATLES#Craig Cross.
Ojorojo (
talk) 18:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC) —
Ojorojo (
talk)
18:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
After reading the article I'm not entirely clear on how or why Seltaeb no longer control the rights to Beatles merchandise, nor when that happened.
The article tells us that "Epstein accused Seltaeb of not accounting properly, and cancelled its power to grant licences" and that this was subject to litigation which Epstein lost but that the judgement was set-aside. Did the set-aside give legal authority to Epstein cancelling Seltaeb's authority to licence? When did this set-aside happen and when did Epstein set up Maximus Enterprises?
Also, I may be wrong but I think Beatles merchandise is now licenced by Apple Corps. A sentence or two telling us where the rights flowed through to the present day would be most welcome.
Other than that - excellent article, a well-deserved GA. It's a pity Andrew is no longer editing and had a (perfectly understandable) phobia of FAR as this would have made for a fascinating Featured Article. -- kingboyk ( talk) 00:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)