Can Blink continue legally without Tom, well they just did....
When a founding member leaves a band, particularly a band with a massive fan base and catalog what happens? One would assume lawyers would be involved and a debate over what percentage of x y z said members are entitled to now and in the future. When Blink formed Viking Wizard Eyes LLC they essentially cut the label out of the picture. (even though BMG is still the parent company) If all 3 members have a controlling stake in the label we can assume they also have equal rights on band decisions. But how does this specific situation work, is there a majority rules clause, does said clause only apply to smaller issues and not massive decisions like bringing in a new member? Assuming Tom is still a stake holder in VWE he likely had a say at the very least legally in his replacement. Bringing in Matt from a public stand point was basically a no brainer since there are very very few people who are on the level needed to step in. Not that we needed the talent of a Mozart or a Bob Dylan, but this decision was under a microscope to say the least. Blink fans cant agree on anything except that they disagree.
Matt is definitely on the level and while losing our punk poet stinks, you wouldn't find a better replacement. Perhaps Tom did agree to bring in Matt for this album and tour with the intention of coming back in a few years for another cycle. This seems so far fetched because the alternative is more common with lawyers and a drawn out legal battle, tom seeking a massive payout or trying to retain rights to everything blink essentially stopping Mark and Trav from going forth with a new member. So the fact that we already have an album and a tour from this band with absolutely no public information on whats happening internally is amazing. My thoughts are Tom still has his hands in jar and rightfully so hes a co-founder and entitled to his lifes work. But then how does that work, he obviously keeps all of his royalties from previous albums etc. Does he get paid the same 33.3% he would of before hand on the new album? How about the tour? Would he get his 1/3 and Matt Mark and Trav split the remaining 66.6% meaning Tom actually would make 11.1% more than the rest of the band? In my head I think this has to be wrong, but I really cannot figure any other way unless Tom just layed down. No legal battle could mean few things, maybe Tom didnt want to go the lawyer route because he knew it would make an already ugly situation even more hideous. Still the money situation makes it funky there is no way he wouldn't fight for that if they were trying to take it. Could Mark and Trav just decided hey man you'll keep everything you have already and gain future percentages, just to make it painless? I mean they are all insanely wealthy, in the $60-$70 mill range, this is plausible, but still weird to think about. Tom sitting on twitter and chasing spaceships while the new album goes #1 for only the second time in the bands history. The other possibility is whatever Tom or his manager said about quitting or not performing with blink indefinitely in those emails ruined his legal case, putting him in a position where he knew it was an up hill battle. In this case I'm sure he still keeps a big portion of blinks merch, back catalog, tour etc... but maybe just not as much.
In any case Tom could of made this blink album impossible to make atleast for a couple years by simply tying it up in court. Even if he knew he was going to lose because of his decisions he has enough money to make a hellishly long judicial matter. I'm certainly glad he didnt do this, this new album rocks, Skiba isn't just a place holder hes made his mark. (no pun intended)
No comments:
Post a Comment