Hooky in the Manc Evening News

Oh dear, poor innocent Peter 😕

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/peter-hook-sues-new-order-10524187

Judge Cooke wrote:

“I strongly urge the parties to seek to resolve the issues between them by entering into some commercial negotiations so that they do not incur the expense of pursuing this matter to trial”.

And I think I speak for the affected parties and all the fans when I say "Shut up, wighead! Let's have seven more years of this shit. Happy Christmas."

Does anyone else here use Firefox and find that it just doesn't get on with the MEN website? I had to use I.E. ffs!

And so it begins....

Yes Debased si I had to use Chrome! What a sad state of affairs...reminds. Me of two divorces...but I LOST!

Alex_Loyal wrote: Oh dear, poor innocent Peter 😕

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/peter-hook-sues-new-order-10524187

"The value of the New Order name, he said, was “evident” from the band’s continuing success when compared to Mr Hook’s new group."

You don't say

One is a group that has been around since the beginning and making new music (with or without Gillian or Peter). The other is a tribute band.

This now reminds me of the ongoing saga of Ross and Rachel

"WE WERE ON A BREAK!" 😴 😴 😴

"The value of the Bernard Sumner's talent*, he said, was “evident” from the band’s continuing success when compared to Mr Hook’s depleted Riff Bank & fear of pirates."

* & Steve, Gillian, Phil & Tom. But mainly Barney.

At the very least, we can see what his problem is. Thanks to the industrial amount of shite that has come from his mouth, I was uncertain what his legal issue was. I initially got the impression that he wanted them to stop using the name 'New Order', but I'm assuming legal heads have told him it's not possible.

I can't see this ending well: if this goes to court, everything will be out in the open. And he could find his credibility severely diminished (if that's possible giving his low standing amongst fans at the moment). Look at the Lol Tolhurst vs Robert Smith case as an example.

Hooky's logic:

"Barney, you can even change back the name of the band to Joy Division...

...if you pay me the proper amount of cash".

I like how in the lawyer's Beatles comparison, Hooky is both Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono.

Andy wrote: I like how in the lawyer's Beatles comparison, Hooky is both Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono.

at best, he's ringo's left ass cheek.

New Order release statement in response: EntertainmentWeekly

Obviously the band are disappointed that Peter is pursuing this claim in this particular way.
The reports so far take a number of things out of context. Peter still, for instance, receives his full share of all back catalogue royalties. This dispute relates only to the share of income he takes from our work without him since 2011.

Not much more we can say as nothing has been decided by the Court on the facts other than he has a right to proceed with the claim, so this matter is still in play. We’re getting on with life and concentrating on touring and promoting our new album.

Andy wrote: New Order release statement in response: EntertainmentWeekly

The defendants need to pay Hooky's legal costs?

Must be looking better for him than I first thought. Certainly looking better for the lawyers, as this could drag on for a very long time - nowhere near as cut and dried as:

"You left. Deal with it. I find in favour of the defendants"

If I was the judge, I would command Hook to pay 1.5% royalties to the surviving members of Hot Chocolate for nicking the baseline off Emmaline for Thieves Like Us - and then using every possible variant of that sound for 99% of every track thereafter. Perhaps Tony Wilson cut some sort of a deal with Brown and Co. You know, a proper deal in blood on a napkin that would stand up in any court in the land.

The Ruts wrote: At the very least, we can see what his problem is. Thanks to the industrial amount of shite that has come from his mouth, I was uncertain what his legal issue was. I initially got the impression that he wanted them to stop using the name 'New Order', but I'm assuming legal heads have told him it's not possible.

I can't see this ending well: if this goes to court, everything will be out in the open. And he could find his credibility severely diminished (if that's possible giving his low standing amongst fans at the moment). Look at the Lol Tolhurst vs Robert Smith case as an example.

I think we all wanted to know what the issue really was and what with all the name calling and wearing desperate T-shirts it hasn't always been clear what is was. I'll be honest in that the nosey bastard in me is looking forward to the ensuing punch-up in the courts, it could make for great reading.

Of course, it all went wrong for Morrissey back in the 90s and like-for-like its New Order in the Morrissey position so maybe Hooky has a good chance of doing a Mike Joyce.

Andy wrote: I like how in the lawyer's Beatles comparison, Hooky is both Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono.

I guess that's the version of the band texture he told his lawyers. Clueless as they probably are, they heavily lean towards his ramblings.

I remember reading that royalties have always been a crucial point between Hooky and Bernard. With the founding of Vitalturn in 1992 Hooky had to reduce his percentage in New Order in favour of Barney, to cover for the complete loss of Electronics royalties from album sales due to the bankruptcy of Factory, while the Revenge album was incredibly expensive in its production for Factory with nearly no sales. Must have been a sting in Hooky's tail all those years.

I’m not Hooky’s biggest fan, but I do have some sympathy here – and I also have a sneaking suspicion that he will win if this goes all the way to court. This has “out of court settlement” written all over it.

Taking all emotion out of it, he ought to be due more than 1.25% of the money New Order make on the back of “being New Order” as he played an essential part in creating what that band name means and crucially still owns his part of it. I keep seeing the comments online saying “why would he expect any money from stuff he hasn’t played on?” which is totally missing the point. It’s about the money being paid to license the name “New Order”.

If I was Hooky’s lawyer exhibit A would be the album sales and tour receipts from Bad Lieutenant in comparison to what they’ve earned gigging as New Order and sales of Music Complete. (Certainly better than his godawful Beatles analogy!)

They’ve also admitted that he is due “something” from the licensing of the New Order name by giving him 1.25%, so they are on shaky ground. I think it said Hooky is after 12.5% - which is still only an eighth – not like he’s asking for an equal share.

I wonder if the two “new blokes” get anything from the licensing deal? I’d be surprised if they do, but if that assumption is correct then it means the other three would still be getting the lion’s share of the deal even if they gave Hooky 12.5%.

Let’s hope they do the decent thing and sort it out before the lawyers end up richer than all of them

GotBlueEyes wrote: I’m not Hooky’s biggest fan, but I do have some sympathy here – and I also have a sneaking suspicion that he will win if this goes all the way to court. This has “out of court settlement” written all over it.

Taking all emotion out of it, he ought to be due more than 1.25% of the money New Order make on the back of “being New Order” as he played an essential part in creating what that band name means and crucially still owns his part of it. I keep seeing the comments online saying “why would he expect any money from stuff he hasn’t played on?” which is totally missing the point. It’s about the money being paid to license the name “New Order”.

If I was Hooky’s lawyer exhibit A would be the album sales and tour receipts from Bad Lieutenant in comparison to what they’ve earned gigging as New Order and sales of Music Complete. (Certainly better than his godawful Beatles analogy!)

They’ve also admitted that he is due “something” from the licensing of the New Order name by giving him 1.25%, so they are on shaky ground. I think it said Hooky is after 12.5% - which is still only an eighth – not like he’s asking for an equal share.

I wonder if the two “new blokes” get anything from the licensing deal? I’d be surprised if they do, but if that assumption is correct then it means the other three would still be getting the lion’s share of the deal even if they gave Hooky 12.5%.

Let’s hope they do the decent thing and sort it out before the lawyers end up richer than all of them

I agree that 1.25% is low, on the other hand he deliberately tried to damage the brand "New Order", which he still co-owns. He did damage to business.

What I don't understand is…

Why is Hook not paying the other 3 for trading on the New Order name at his gigs? While it is true to say that there is far more money to be made touring as New Order than as BadL, it is also true that touring the New Order back catalogue, with posters covered in the New Order name and associated imagery, is far more lucrative than using the Monaco name and music. Now, I went to, and loved, both the BadL and Monaco gigs, but the truth is that most other people are drawn into both the New Order and The Light gigs by the New Order (and Joy Division) name, legacy and music. What is Hook really doing that the others are not? Why are they paying him, and him not paying them? They are all trading on the name and legacy they built up together, are they not? In fact, you could argue that he more so, as at least they are writing and recording new material, and not just selling past glories.

Coops wrote: Of course, it all went wrong for Morrissey back in the 90s and like-for-like its New Order in the Morrissey position so maybe Hooky has a good chance of doing a Mike Joyce.

Do you really think so? To me it appears that Hooky is more representative of the "truculent and unreliable" Morrissey in this situation. From memory though, neither of the parties came out of that court case smelling of roses and I don't see why this one would be any different.

Also, I'm pretty sure that nobody has suggested that Hooky was anything less than a full member of New Order up until the time that he left/they split whereas Joyce and Rourke felt that they had been treated like session musicians throughout their career with The Smiths, a position for which I have a great deal of sympathy.

GotBlueEyes wrote: Taking all emotion out of it, he ought to be due more than 1.25% of the money New Order make on the back of “being New Order” as he played an essential part in creating what that band name means and crucially still owns his part of it. I keep seeing the comments online saying “why would he expect any money from stuff he hasn’t played on?” which is totally missing the point. It’s about the money being paid to license the name “New Order”.

You may have a good point here. I have a horrible feeling that the forum is going to be filled with discussions (leading to arguments) about this for some time to come.

I understand why he is (and should) be paid for them trading on the New Order name and legacy they built together, and I can see why he thinks he should be paid a bigger share… but I still don't get why he doesn't have to pay them for doing the same? Look at the posters for his gigs… They owe him for their current career, for sure, but he owes them for his as well.

I find it difficult to believe this now - if it's all so clear cut, and he's been spectacularly ripped off, why didn't he say so in the first place years ago? Why all the guff about use of the name, "I split the band" and the personal insults etc? What they say on those police interceptors - you should not fail to mention something you later rely on in court. Re Yoko, is he implying Deborah Curtis is also involved? The lawyers must be rubbing their hands in glee.

Spittingcat wrote: I understand why he is (and should) be paid for them trading on the New Order name and legacy they built together, and I can see why he thinks he should be paid a bigger share… but I still don't get why he doesn't have to pay them for doing the same? Look at the posters for his gigs… They owe him for their current career, for sure, but he owes them for his as well.

That's a good point - are you sure that he doesn't, or are you making an assumption?

If he doesn't then it's a fair point that maybe it ought to work both ways - albeit I guess the others will be less interested in his considerably smaller income than he is in theirs!

Don't forget that they will be getting PRS payments for every New Order/Joy Division song that he ever plays live though

edspess wrote:

Coops wrote: Of course, it all went wrong for Morrissey back in the 90s and like-for-like its New Order in the Morrissey position so maybe Hooky has a good chance of doing a Mike Joyce.

Do you really think so? To me it appears that Hooky is more representative of the "truculent and unreliable" Morrissey in this situation. From memory though, neither of the parties came out of that court case smelling of roses and I don't see why this one would be any different.

Also, I'm pretty sure that nobody has suggested that Hooky was anything less than a full member of New Order up until the time that he left/they split whereas Joyce and Rourke felt that they had been treated like session musicians throughout their career with The Smiths, a position for which I have a great deal of sympathy.

I agree, especially with the truculent part. However, in terms of just money both Joyce, Rourke and Hook all felt/feel that what they were getting is not enough and they wanted more. Mozzer/New Order think they're getting what they're entitled to.

rosygale wrote: I find it difficult to believe this now - if it's all so clear cut, and he's been spectacularly ripped off, why didn't he say so in the first place years ago? Why all the guff about use of the name, "I split the band" and the personal insults etc? What they say on those police interceptors - you should not fail to mention something you later rely on in court. Re Yoko, is he implying Deborah Curtis is also involved? The lawyers must be rubbing their hands in glee.

I agree with this, and I think that maybe to begin with it was all about stopping the band from playing and using the name, and to begin with there may have been no legal case at all, just him gobbing off. But as soon as Music Complete zoomed into the charts, and the recent upsurge in the bands profile, maybe he has either changed his legal approach to all of this, motivated by money, or some legal turds have been watching all of this and stepped in on his behalf as they think they may get him (and them) some cash due to the bands recent success. I also find it odd that if this legal team have been with him from the off that they have allowed him to fire off his vile time and time again, plus, I cannot imagine the other 3 setting something up with no legal advice of their own. I think Hook is pissing in the wind and I for one hope he gets jack shit.

rosygale wrote: I find it difficult to believe this now - if it's all so clear cut, and he's been spectacularly ripped off, why didn't he say so in the first place years ago? Why all the guff about use of the name, "I split the band" and the personal insults etc? What they say on those police interceptors - you should not fail to mention something you later rely on in court. Re Yoko, is he implying Deborah Curtis is also involved? The lawyers must be rubbing their hands in glee.

Hadn't thought in terms of Deborah Curtis. It would imply she's also being wronged and is siding with Hook.

Andy wrote:

rosygale wrote: I find it difficult to believe this now - if it's all so clear cut, and he's been spectacularly ripped off, why didn't he say so in the first place years ago? Why all the guff about use of the name, "I split the band" and the personal insults etc? What they say on those police interceptors - you should not fail to mention something you later rely on in court. Re Yoko, is he implying Deborah Curtis is also involved? The lawyers must be rubbing their hands in glee.

Hadn't thought in terms of Deborah Curtis. It would imply she's also being wronged and is siding with Hook.

I think d c Did a talk or something with Steve at festival number 6 a few months back so if she'd sided with hook I don't think she'd have done it?

NotAMod wrote: I really wouldn't read too much into the slightly bizarre "Fabs" comparison the QC threw out there. I sense that was more for press release purposes in order to make those unfamiliar with New Order understand what was going by referencing the most well known band on the planet. Deborah Curtis's involvement would probably depend on whether Vitalturn also handles Joy Division's income. A quick glance at Discogs shows that the company only really features on New Order releases. There may be another limited company which exclusively handles JD (would certainly make sense as it's a legacy in itself).

As the band say, it's only really about income generated since 2011 by (new) New Order.

All the pre-2007 material is covered by Vitalturn and shared as it always has been (including reissues etc).

So basically after spending the past four years trying to convince the world that the current act known as "New Order" is NOT New Order because he is no longer a part of them, now he totally flip-flopped his position and is trying to convince the court that they are indeed New Order and owe him money now for those past for years. 🙄

All quite upsetting. All 4 original members will always be my heroes whatever they say about each other.

I can see it from both sides, the name New Order is still a very powerful brand. I can see why the band would not want to pay hooky too much as he is not part of the creative process anymore but without the name New Order they would not make nowhere near as much money as they have.

Personally I think this case will be in Hooky's favour. Hopefully they will settle out of court.

Ironically MC is the one of the bands best of their whole career so will make both parties more money than they could have hoped for when the three of them set the the new Company up. Hopefully this will not spell the end of the name New Order.

Cannot understand why people have a go at Hooky regarding his legendary bass lines, they will always be a sound track to my life. I don't know any of them personally but I wish them all well, I will still be in Manchester on Saturday to see new order and also any future The Light gigs, forget all this, as at the end of the day it's only the music that matters, and God does it still matter, to me anyway. Saturday should be pretty amazing. Would love NO to add Academic and Unlearn this Hatred to their set.

Moderne Decay wrote: So basically after spending the past four years trying to convince the world that the current act known as "New Order" is NOT New Order because he is no longer a part of them, now he totally flip-flopped his position and is trying to convince the court that they are indeed New Order and owe him money now for those past for years. 🙄

Well he says they're TRADING as New Order, having done a bit of a 'sneaky'. And as the post below yours says...

The Shadow wrote: without the name New Order they would not make nowhere near as much money as they have.

Indeed fifty quid a ticket after fees for Brixton was quite the fee. I paid it but I felt I was being fleeced.

Debaser wrote:

Moderne Decay wrote: So basically after spending the past four years trying to convince the world that the current act known as "New Order" is NOT New Order because he is no longer a part of them, now he totally flip-flopped his position and is trying to convince the court that they are indeed New Order and owe him money now for those past for years. 🙄

Well he says they're TRADING as New Order, having done a bit of a 'sneaky'. And as the post below yours says...

The Shadow wrote: without the name New Order they would not make nowhere near as much money as they have.

Indeed fifty quid a ticket after fees for Brixton was quite the fee. I paid it but I felt I was being fleeced.

But that's essentially what I was saying, that he's taking issue with them continuing to use the name "New Order" without him, then somehow expecting to be paid for any money generated post-2011. All their current gigs, new merch and new material is their investment. If he hasn't contributed a single penny toward anything they done post-2011 to generate an income, he's no longer part of that investment. And as someone else has said, if he's expecting to get paid for them gigging with older material featuring his basslines, then the flip side to that will be him owing Sumner, Morris and Gillian about 75% of the income he's generated doing his JD/NO album tours since it's their material as well.

For anyone curious about how music royalties work in various circumstances, David Byrne's book "How Music Works" is very good, very clear.

this is ridiculous.

SheWasInALine wrote: this is ridiculous.

It's sort of like waiting for an epic train wreck which has taken nine years in the making. On the other hand, New Order are getting even more free press now since most of these news articles keep mentioning the new album.

NotAMod wrote: New Order And Peter Hook – How To Rip A Band Apart, In 11 Easy Steps

A bit odd what the NME are saying, Bernard started a new band with his old (BL) band mates, but they forget to mention Steve and Phil were already in NO before BL. We don't need these pricks confusing the story even more

I really think Peter overstates his own importance in New Order. Yes, his bass playing was an important part of the band's sound, but it was far from the only thing that made the band so interesting and innovative, which was mainly due to the way they mixed post-punk with dance music and used samplers, drum machines and synthesizers in such new and interesting ways, which I think would have been remarkable even without Peter's bass playing.

Also, I can understand how he would ask to be compensated fairly given that he helped build up the New Order brand and that basslines that he wrote are being played by Tom Chapman live, but is he also compensating Bernard, Stephen and Gillian for playing music live as Peter Hook and the Light that they wrote?

NotAMod wrote: New Order And Peter Hook – How To Rip A Band Apart, In 11 Easy Steps

I find it ridiculous that Peter would claim that Bernard "broke up" New Order by forming Electronic (although this is far from the only ridiculous statement that he has made since he left in 2007). I like Peter a lot, his bass playing in New Order is great (I even saw The Light and liked it quite a bit), but I really wish he would act in a manner that matches the musical legacy that he has left.

Moderne Decay wrote:

But that's essentially what I was saying, that he's taking issue with them continuing to use the name "New Order" without him, then somehow expecting to be paid for any money generated post-2011. All their current gigs, new merch and new material is their investment. If he hasn't contributed a single penny toward anything they done post-2011 to generate an income, he's no longer part of that investment.

You're right but I still think you're slightly missing the point. He still owns a part of the New Order name. They have struck a new deal to license the use of the name New Order which allows them to essentially continue gigging and releasing records under the New Order name. That's a powerful brand name and has made them demonstrably larger amounts of money than if they'd called Music Complete a Bad Lieutenant album. Hence the premium being paid to license the name "New Order". They are paying Hook 1.25% of the deal, which is admission on their part that his stake in the New Order name exists and therefore he is due something from the licensing deal. Hook's argument is that they made that decision without him and he thinks the percentage is too low. That's it. Nothing to do with him contributing anything to the band post-2011, it's about his stake in the brand.

Imagine you and 4 mates invented Coca-Cola, and you jointly own the brand name. Then you fall out and the other 3 license the name to a new company which means the new company can officially call their new fizzy pop "Coca-Cola" even though it's not really the same recipe that people associate with the Coca-Cola. But they strike this deal behind your back and decide that you will only get 1.25% of the deal, while they get the other 98.75%. That would seem a little unfair to me

GotBlueEyes wrote: They are paying Hook 1.25% of the deal, which is admission on their part that his stake in the New Order name exists and therefore he is due something from the licensing deal.

They're not as such, they're paying themselves. The new company is paying the old company.

GotBlueEyes wrote:

Moderne Decay wrote:

But that's essentially what I was saying, that he's taking issue with them continuing to use the name "New Order" without him, then somehow expecting to be paid for any money generated post-2011. All their current gigs, new merch and new material is their investment. If he hasn't contributed a single penny toward anything they done post-2011 to generate an income, he's no longer part of that investment.

You're right but I still think you're slightly missing the point. He still owns a part of the New Order name. They have struck a new deal to license the use of the name New Order which allows them to essentially continue gigging and releasing records under the New Order name. That's a powerful brand name and has made them demonstrably larger amounts of money than if they'd called Music Complete a Bad Lieutenant album. Hence the premium being paid to license the name "New Order". They are paying Hook 1.25% of the deal, which is admission on their part that his stake in the New Order name exists and therefore he is due something from the licensing deal. Hook's argument is that they made that decision without him and he thinks the percentage is too low. That's it. Nothing to do with him contributing anything to the band post-2011, it's about his stake in the brand.

Imagine you and 4 mates invented Coca-Cola, and you jointly own the brand name. Then you fall out and the other 3 license the name to a new company which means the new company can officially call their new fizzy pop "Coca-Cola" even though it's not really the same recipe that people associate with the Coca-Cola. But they strike this deal behind your back and decide that you will only get 1.25% of the deal, while they get the other 98.75%. That would seem a little unfair to me

Yes, but this has always been the case in the history of music, namely (but not limited to):

• Roger Waters & Pink Floyd
• Lol Tolhurst & The Cure
• Alan Wilder & Depeche Mode
• Rest of ELO & Jeff Lynne

etc etc etc

I quoted the above as there's probably been a legal precedence in some of the cases above - I'm not entirely sure what the outcome was? Roger Waters and the Floyd settled out of court...

Bands continue without founding members all of the time - most of the bands I followed in the 80's/90's have different line-ups...

Leaving aside Coca-Cola, does Steve Wozniak still profit from being one of the original people who set up Apple?

Anyway, has there been a case (aside from Bucks Fizz) where the legal system has successfully managed to prevent a majority of members continuing under the existing band name?

Just curious - obviously all of the above doesn't affect any of us personally - we just get to see two bands playing music more often (probably so that they can pay off the exorbitant legal bills)!

😎

Alex_Loyal wrote:

A bit odd what the NME are saying, Bernard started a new band with his old (BL) band mates, but they forget to mention Steve and Phil were already in NO before BL. We don't need these pricks confusing the story even more

Right. Also - although it no doubt suits Hooky to elide the distinction - Steve was not a member of BL. He got a co-write credit on 2 out of 16 tracks and played on 3. When they put a touring band together, Steve accepted the invitation. I don't see what's unusual about that. The creative work was almost entirely conceived and put together by Cunningham/Sumner/Evans. The latter was, to anyone with ears, an important ingredient in a mix that rarely sounds like NO.

Nick King wrote:

Just curious - obviously all of the above doesn't affect any of us personally - we just get to see two bands playing music more often (probably so that they can pay off the exorbitant legal bills)!

😎

We might finally get that greatest hits collection we've been hoping for!

Hook's argument about co-creating the Neworder brand has legal merit, it is clear.

However, it must not go unrecognised that when he left the band (for this is what he did) he unilaterally sought to end Neworder as an entity in 2007, denying his former bandmates their living and their fans their favourite band of many a long year.

As if that was not bad enough, he the proceeded to spend many of the long years since referring to them as "so called Neworder", "New Odour" and many much worse personal insults. (Whilst all the time declaring his admiration for B&S as musicians, as if he was respecting some kind of ethical fucking code.) As for the stuff he said about Gillian, well - nuff said. And he was still carrying on this stupid charade with as recently as the risible "Music Incomplete" t-shirt stunt.

The clear conclusion is, Hook did everything he could over the last decade to destroy the brand he now seeks compensation for. And he sees fit to whinge about the others going behind his back? Really?

The new album is phenomenally good because he had fuck all to do with it, not poorer for missing his 'input'. He will have been desperate to slag off the new music, bass playing and everything to do with Neworder's current popularity and success because his ego is so ridiculously inflated but mercifully appears to have savvy enough lawyers to put a big dummy back in his gob, at least for time being.

I used to adore Peter Hook but for fucksake just throw him his pieces of silver and put some form of gagging order in the deal so I don't have to listen to the pathetic shitbag he has become any more.

Rorschach wrote: Hook's argument about co-creating the Neworder brand has legal merit, it is clear.

However, it must not go unrecognised that when he left the band (for this is what he did) he unilaterally sought to end Neworder as an entity in 2007, denying his former bandmates their living and their fans their favourite band of many a long year.

As if that was not bad enough, he the proceeded to spend many of the long years since referring to them as "so called Neworder", "New Odour" and many much worse personal insults. (Whilst all the time declaring his admiration for B&S as musicians, as if he was respecting some kind of ethical fucking code.) As for the stuff he said about Gillian, well - nuff said. And he was still carrying on this stupid charade with as recently as the risible "Music Incomplete" t-shirt stunt.

The clear conclusion is, Hook did everything he could over the last decade to destroy the brand he now seeks compensation for. And he sees fit to whinge about the others going behind his back? Really?

The new album is phenomenally good because he had fuck all to do with it, not poorer for missing his 'input'. He will have been desperate to slag off the new music, bass playing and everything to do with Neworder's current popularity and success because his ego is so ridiculously inflated but mercifully appears to have savvy enough lawyers to put a big dummy back in his gob, at least for time being.

I used to adore Peter Hook but for fucksake just throw him his pieces of silver and put some form of gagging order in the deal so I don't have to listen to the pathetic shitbag he has become any more.

Brilliant. Won't stand up in court, but brilliant nonetheless.

I would have to agree with those who say Hooky is entitled to a small percentage of the post-2011 earnings New Order has generated given that he was an important contributor to the success of the band (and brand) from 1980 to 2006. However, if fairness was to be applied, his claim should be rendered null and void by his atrocious behaviour since 2007.

Although I would probably like to see the current line-up shoot this out in the courts, it might be best to draw up some sort of settlement and pay Hooky a lump sum(which he will have to return if he ever starts gobbing off about the current members again!). The only winners if this case goes to trial will be those leeching c*nts they call lawyers. Given the relatively modest income the band has enjoyed since returning to touring, they are better off protecting this as best they can rather than handing over truck-loads of cash to lawyers.

Gillian should counter-sue Hooky for earnings he has enjoyed from touring and new album sales between 2001 and 2011 too. By applying his logic, he should hand some cash back to her without complaint!

Poor old Hooky, if only he had an ounce of the talent Bernard has.

Fotzepolitic wrote: Poor old Hooky, if only he had an ounce of the talent Bernard has.

agreed well said Two Sheds

Guilty partner

I thought if a band member left, they forfeited the rights to any future profits, the name etc?

There are so many parallels between band break ups and marriage break ups. If Hooky leaving the band was the separation, this is the divorce settlement.

matt_paradise wrote: I thought if a band member left, they forfeited the rights to any future profits, the name etc?

That's probably the most common scenario, but it depends.

In this case, Hooky is still a director of the "old" NO company Vitalturn, which owns the name "New Order" as a trademark. But the other three have a controlling share of Vitalturn and they licenced the trademark to a new company, New Order Ltd.

Hooky is arguing that either this was unlawful or that the price (5% of NO Ltd's profits, it seems) was too low.

BTW, I found out from googling that Hooky tried to register "New Order Ltd" as a trademark in 2011. Now that's krafty...

msb wrote:

matt_paradise wrote: I thought if a band member left, they forfeited the rights to any future profits, the name etc?

That's probably the most common scenario, but it depends.

In this case, Hooky is still a director of the "old" NO company Vitalturn, which owns the name "New Order" as a trademark. But the other three have a controlling share of Vitalturn and they licenced the trademark to a new company, New Order Ltd.

Hooky is arguing that either this was unlawful or that the price (5% of NO Ltd's profits, it seems) was too low.

BTW, I found out from googling that Hooky tried to register "New Order Ltd" as a trademark in 2011. Now that's krafty...

I guess we now know why they went with 'New Order Now' as their website name.

Interesting. On the basis of what we know, let's lay a few things out.

2007 : PH leaves. Says band split. Band disagree.

2007-2011 : BS, SM, and PC have Bad Lieutenant, and GG has cancer. Not surprising there isn't a New Order, really.

2007-now : PH says lots of unpleasant things in the press.

2011 : SM, GG, and BS formed New Order Now Limited (NON) to reflect new and future New Order activity. GG gets all clear from cancer so rejoins. Vitalturn still exists and administers revenue from activity of New Order dating to 2011. NON Limited administers future activity going forward (shows, records, etc.). 5% of NON revenue is paid to Vitalturn, which splits things equally, hence 1.25%.

2014 : PH says he's an oppressed minority in a partnership. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder\_oppression )

2011-2015 : New Order have grossed £7.8m turonver, averaging around £2.1m per annum and around 25 shows (ish) a year. *

2010-2015 : PH tours his celebration of Joy Division / New Order shows, averaging 80ish gigs a year.

2015 : PH sues NO for not paying him enough from NON to VT.

My layman's view is -

Apparently historical revenue, royalties, licensing for merchanise and Joy Division plimsolls, and so forth for JD + NO band activity 1977-2010 averages approx £1m per year. Ifthis is wholly paid to Vitalturn (and I don't see why it wouldn't), each member 'earns' around £250k per annum, less operating costs. GG and PC may be paid less, given that neither was a full member for the entire period, and PC was made a full member circa 2004.

Additionally, if 2011-onwards activity is administered by NON, then how BS, GG, SM, PC & TC divide the money up is up to them. I imagine BS, GG, and SM are majority shareholders (let's say 25% each), and PC, TC are minority shareholders (lets say 10% each) to reflect the late contribution, with 5% to Vitalturn, which in turn is 1.25% to Hook. However New Order are the band that also have to fund all their activities. Road crews, touring, travel, flights, hotels, visas etc are by no mean cheap. So let's say NO operate at a 10% profit (or, around £730,000 profit over the last few years). PH gets 1.25% of the total current New Order revenue, and he isn't paying any operating costs for current New Order activity, which is generating the profit he is taking a slice of. Therefore, by my estimation £250k pa (royalties from Vitalturn historical account) + 1.25% of £7.8m/four years = £2.15m therefore should equal around £24,375 pa, so a gross PH income from 'legacy' activity of around £274k pa.

This is all speculation of course.

Plus the profits he makes from touring The Light. Does he pay New Order 1.25% of The Lights gross revenue to reflect the commercial advantage and value the New Order & JD brand has made to contributing to his current commercial profile? If New Order pay 5% to VT on a legacy basis (of which PH gets 1.25% being one quarter of the band) then surely PH should pay 3.75% of The Light Ltd to New Order to reflect their contribution (being three qarters of the band)? I doubt that happens.

None of this reflects the reputational damage inflicted upon New Order by Hook's very public, and very vitriolic, statements which have damaged the brand.

Personally, and this is just my personal opinion, New Order Now Ltd should pay Vitalturn 10% of profits (not turnover) to reflect the brand status at the time of New Order recommencing activity in 2011. Which would make PH's payments from VT 2.5% of the profts, not 1.25%. The 90% retained by NON reflects the risk taken by New Order and commercial investment made, in order to generate a profit through live performances.

Vitalturn should - and again, I am by no mean a lawyer - be responsible for all band income for activity from 1977-2010, and also reciept of publishing for all songs written by / with Hook, so Hook gets his requisite share of royalties from "Live At The Troxy", "Bestival" etc (for writing only). If band income pa for 1977-2010 comes to £1m then, once administration costs are taken into account, that feels like a division of around 25% each. Well, slightly less, as Stephen Hague, Arthur Baker, John Robie, and Keef Allen may have writing credits on the odd song.

Clear as mud! An out of court settlement beckons.

p.s. you can wake up now. x

Those days of a happy Peter gleefully holding on as Bernard hotrodded around greater Manchester popping wheelies on his scooter are gone. I predict Bernard will get an OBE ( I prefer sir Bernard but commander summer is fine , too.)and Peter goes triple mental

Mark, if you want to, you can find lots of pdfs by searching for the companies on companies house (it's New Order Ltd, not New Order Now, though). Some of them come up blank, however.

It looks like only G, S and B are directors of the new company and there is no company covering JD unless it is Vitalturn, but then you would expect DC to be a director and she is not.

msb wrote: Mark, if you want to, you can find lots of pdfs by searching for the companies on companies house (it's New Order Ltd, not New Order Now, though). Some of them come up blank, however.

It looks like only G, S and B are directors of the new company and there is no company covering JD unless it is Vitalturn, but then you would expect DC to be a director and she is not.

I don't want to look up stuff on Companies House. Bloody glad I'm not an accountant though...

keepitcoming wrote: Those days of a happy Peter gleefully holding on as Bernard hotrodded around greater Manchester popping wheelies on his scooter are gone. I predict Bernard will get an OBE ( I prefer sir Bernard but commander summer is fine , too.)and Peter goes triple mental

Why not get the Vatican involved: Saint Bernard!

Ireland has a well known chain of stores (food & clothing) called Dunnes Stores. A bit like a downmarket Marks & Spencer. They used to use their own brand name of "St Bernard" on a lot of their products. I'd prefer not to think of New Order as a Dunnes Stores product, thanks!

st bernard

Hooky is lucky he's even getting royalties from everything post 2011.

And what's all these rumors in medias about Bernard could face jail time for this nonsense? Is this for real or just scare tactic bullying by the strictly pro-Hooky people or Hooky? I cannot even fathom why anything like this could result in that. I hope nothing like that happens. :(

I think they need to just settle out of court, but sadly think Hooky will just want to keep dragging this on for the sake of it. :(

markreed wrote: Interesting. On the basis of what we know, let's lay a few things out.

2007 : PH leaves. Says band split. Band disagree.

2007-2011 : BS, SM, and PC have Bad Lieutenant, and GG has cancer. Not surprising there isn't a New Order, really.

2007-now : PH says lots of unpleasant things in the press.

2011 : SM, GG, and BS formed New Order Now Limited (NON) to reflect new and future New Order activity. GG gets all clear from cancer so rejoins. Vitalturn still exists and administers revenue from activity of New Order dating to 2011. NON Limited administers future activity going forward (shows, records, etc.). 5% of NON revenue is paid to Vitalturn, which splits things equally, hence 1.25%.

2014 : PH says he's an oppressed minority in a partnership. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder\_oppression )

2011-2015 : New Order have grossed £7.8m turonver, averaging around £2.1m per annum and around 25 shows (ish) a year. *

2010-2015 : PH tours his celebration of Joy Division / New Order shows, averaging 80ish gigs a year.

2015 : PH sues NO for not paying him enough from NON to VT.

My layman's view is -

Apparently historical revenue, royalties, licensing for merchanise and Joy Division plimsolls, and so forth for JD + NO band activity 1977-2010 averages approx £1m per year. Ifthis is wholly paid to Vitalturn (and I don't see why it wouldn't), each member 'earns' around £250k per annum, less operating costs. GG and PC may be paid less, given that neither was a full member for the entire period, and PC was made a full member circa 2004.

Additionally, if 2011-onwards activity is administered by NON, then how BS, GG, SM, PC & TC divide the money up is up to them. I imagine BS, GG, and SM are majority shareholders (let's say 25% each), and PC, TC are minority shareholders (lets say 10% each) to reflect the late contribution, with 5% to Vitalturn, which in turn is 1.25% to Hook. However New Order are the band that also have to fund all their activities. Road crews, touring, travel, flights, hotels, visas etc are by no mean cheap. So let's say NO operate at a 10% profit (or, around £730,000 profit over the last few years). PH gets 1.25% of the total current New Order revenue, and he isn't paying any operating costs for current New Order activity, which is generating the profit he is taking a slice of. Therefore, by my estimation £250k pa (royalties from Vitalturn historical account) + 1.25% of £7.8m/four years = £2.15m therefore should equal around £24,375 pa, so a gross PH income from 'legacy' activity of around £274k pa.

This is all speculation of course.

Plus the profits he makes from touring The Light. Does he pay New Order 1.25% of The Lights gross revenue to reflect the commercial advantage and value the New Order & JD brand has made to contributing to his current commercial profile? If New Order pay 5% to VT on a legacy basis (of which PH gets 1.25% being one quarter of the band) then surely PH should pay 3.75% of The Light Ltd to New Order to reflect their contribution (being three qarters of the band)? I doubt that happens.

None of this reflects the reputational damage inflicted upon New Order by Hook's very public, and very vitriolic, statements which have damaged the brand.

Personally, and this is just my personal opinion, New Order Now Ltd should pay Vitalturn 10% of profits (not turnover) to reflect the brand status at the time of New Order recommencing activity in 2011. Which would make PH's payments from VT 2.5% of the profts, not 1.25%. The 90% retained by NON reflects the risk taken by New Order and commercial investment made, in order to generate a profit through live performances.

Vitalturn should - and again, I am by no mean a lawyer - be responsible for all band income for activity from 1977-2010, and also reciept of publishing for all songs written by / with Hook, so Hook gets his requisite share of royalties from "Live At The Troxy", "Bestival" etc (for writing only). If band income pa for 1977-2010 comes to £1m then, once administration costs are taken into account, that feels like a division of around 25% each. Well, slightly less, as Stephen Hague, Arthur Baker, John Robie, and Keef Allen may have writing credits on the odd song.

Clear as mud! An out of court settlement beckons.

p.s. you can wake up now. x

LOL. I'm still confused after reading all that.

YAWN

Shut the Hook up.

markreed wrote: Interesting. On the basis of what we know, let's lay a few things out.

2007 : PH leaves. Says band split. Band disagree.

2007-2011 : BS, SM, and PC have Bad Lieutenant, and GG has cancer. Not surprising there isn't a New Order, really.

2007-now : PH says lots of unpleasant things in the press.

2011 : SM, GG, and BS formed New Order Now Limited (NON) to reflect new and future New Order activity. GG gets all clear from cancer so rejoins. Vitalturn still exists and administers revenue from activity of New Order dating to 2011. NON Limited administers future activity going forward (shows, records, etc.). 5% of NON revenue is paid to Vitalturn, which splits things equally, hence 1.25%.

2014 : PH says he's an oppressed minority in a partnership. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder\_oppression )

2011-2015 : New Order have grossed £7.8m turonver, averaging around £2.1m per annum and around 25 shows (ish) a year. *

2010-2015 : PH tours his celebration of Joy Division / New Order shows, averaging 80ish gigs a year.

2015 : PH sues NO for not paying him enough from NON to VT.

My layman's view is -

Apparently historical revenue, royalties, licensing for merchanise and Joy Division plimsolls, and so forth for JD + NO band activity 1977-2010 averages approx £1m per year. Ifthis is wholly paid to Vitalturn (and I don't see why it wouldn't), each member 'earns' around £250k per annum, less operating costs. GG and PC may be paid less, given that neither was a full member for the entire period, and PC was made a full member circa 2004.

Additionally, if 2011-onwards activity is administered by NON, then how BS, GG, SM, PC & TC divide the money up is up to them. I imagine BS, GG, and SM are majority shareholders (let's say 25% each), and PC, TC are minority shareholders (lets say 10% each) to reflect the late contribution, with 5% to Vitalturn, which in turn is 1.25% to Hook. However New Order are the band that also have to fund all their activities. Road crews, touring, travel, flights, hotels, visas etc are by no mean cheap. So let's say NO operate at a 10% profit (or, around £730,000 profit over the last few years). PH gets 1.25% of the total current New Order revenue, and he isn't paying any operating costs for current New Order activity, which is generating the profit he is taking a slice of. Therefore, by my estimation £250k pa (royalties from Vitalturn historical account) + 1.25% of £7.8m/four years = £2.15m therefore should equal around £24,375 pa, so a gross PH income from 'legacy' activity of around £274k pa.

This is all speculation of course.

Plus the profits he makes from touring The Light. Does he pay New Order 1.25% of The Lights gross revenue to reflect the commercial advantage and value the New Order & JD brand has made to contributing to his current commercial profile? If New Order pay 5% to VT on a legacy basis (of which PH gets 1.25% being one quarter of the band) then surely PH should pay 3.75% of The Light Ltd to New Order to reflect their contribution (being three qarters of the band)? I doubt that happens.

None of this reflects the reputational damage inflicted upon New Order by Hook's very public, and very vitriolic, statements which have damaged the brand.

Personally, and this is just my personal opinion, New Order Now Ltd should pay Vitalturn 10% of profits (not turnover) to reflect the brand status at the time of New Order recommencing activity in 2011. Which would make PH's payments from VT 2.5% of the profts, not 1.25%. The 90% retained by NON reflects the risk taken by New Order and commercial investment made, in order to generate a profit through live performances.

Vitalturn should - and again, I am by no mean a lawyer - be responsible for all band income for activity from 1977-2010, and also reciept of publishing for all songs written by / with Hook, so Hook gets his requisite share of royalties from "Live At The Troxy", "Bestival" etc (for writing only). If band income pa for 1977-2010 comes to £1m then, once administration costs are taken into account, that feels like a division of around 25% each. Well, slightly less, as Stephen Hague, Arthur Baker, John Robie, and Keef Allen may have writing credits on the odd song.

Clear as mud! An out of court settlement beckons.

p.s. you can wake up now. x

I found that simple enough to follow.

if our songbird , Barney , aka twatto , ends up in wormwood scrubs or , strangeways, all hope is not lost . Surely they will allow him wine , synths , guitars , and computer.

One could argue this highly publicized court case is actually damaging the New Order "brand".

Even if his case is successful, he'll have lost. He'll be seen as someone who dragged the band through the mud while demanding a share of the current success that he's had fuck all to do with.

Digi Mike wrote: YAWN

Clearly you agree with Bernard that this is "boring".

Please tell me they can't put him in jail for this, right? :( any law buffs out there to give 2 cents? This whole thing has me sad and I only just started hearing this rumor... it broke my heart. I personally don't see how any of it could be criminal. I thought this was a civil court case? But the thing with hooky accusing he was unlawfully whatever the other thing was makes no sense cos I REALLY doubt the band would do anything purposefully illegal they are very smart people and probably sought legal consult when they made any decisions. i cant see otherwise.

Is it that Hooky is refusing to accept an out of court settlement??

lentils of planet x wrote:

Is it that Hooky is refusing to accept an out of court settlement??

No it's Hooky refusing to accept he is a complete an utter wanker without an ounce of the talent Bernard has.

lentils of planet x wrote: Please tell me they can't put him in jail for this, right? :( any law buffs out there to give 2 cents? This whole thing has me sad and I only just started hearing this rumor... it broke my heart. I personally don't see how any of it could be criminal. I thought this was a civil court case? But the thing with hooky accusing he was unlawfully whatever the other thing was makes no sense cos I REALLY doubt the band would do anything purposefully illegal they are very smart people and probably sought legal consult when they made any decisions. i cant see otherwise.

Is it that Hooky is refusing to accept an out of court settlement??

Not likely at all. It's a civil not criminal case about distibution of wealth. The band (N.O.) would've undoubtedly paid specialist lawyers to give them assurances they could successfully trade as New Order without Hook and the lawyers would have had a duty of care to ensure that Hook was, legally at least, recognised for the past contribution (hence the 5%).

There's a fascinating interview with Mike Joyce about The Smiths case. http://themouthmagazine.com/2015/12/03/mike-joyce/ His lawyer assured him that "All these cases get sorted out on the court steps". I think N.O. would be making a strategic error if they didn't make a pre-court offer, eve if HOok rejects it out of hand. Then again, I think Hook expects to get 25% of everything the band ever do in future whilst he sits at home, and well, that's never going to happen. I doubt any court would see it as reasonable for him to get 25% of the band's future money for 0% of the band's future work.

lentils of planet x wrote: Please tell me they can't put him in jail for this, right?

"Bernard Edward Sumner, you have pleaded guilty to the charges brought by this court, and it is now my duty to pass sentence. You are an habitual criminal, who accepts arrest as an occupational hazard, and presumably accepts imprisonment in the same casual manner. We therefore feel constrained to commit you to the maximum term allowed for these offences: you will go to prison for five years"

Coops wrote:

"Bernard Edward Sumner, you have pleaded guilty to the charges brought by this court, and it is now my duty to pass sentence. You are an habitual criminal, who accepts arrest as an occupational hazard, and presumably accepts imprisonment in the same casual manner. We therefore feel constrained to commit you to the maximum term allowed for these offences: you will go to prison for five years"

I thought the end bit was going to be: "you must allow Hooky to rejoin the band".

markreed wrote:

My layman's view is -

Apparently historical revenue, royalties, licensing for merchanise and Joy Division plimsolls, and so forth for JD + NO band activity 1977-2010 averages approx £1m per year. Ifthis is wholly paid to Vitalturn (and I don't see why it wouldn't), each member 'earns' around £250k per annum, less operating costs. GG and PC may be paid less, given that neither was a full member for the entire period, and PC was made a full member circa 2004.

Additionally, if 2011-onwards activity is administered by NON, then how BS, GG, SM, PC & TC divide the money up is up to them. I imagine BS, GG, and SM are majority shareholders (let's say 25% each), and PC, TC are minority shareholders (lets say 10% each) to reflect the late contribution, with 5% to Vitalturn, which in turn is 1.25% to Hook. However New Order are the band that also have to fund all their activities. Road crews, touring, travel, flights, hotels, visas etc are by no mean cheap. So let's say NO operate at a 10% profit (or, around £730,000 profit over the last few years). PH gets 1.25% of the total current New Order revenue, and he isn't paying any operating costs for current New Order activity, which is generating the profit he is taking a slice of. Therefore, by my estimation £250k pa (royalties from Vitalturn historical account) + 1.25% of £7.8m/four years = £2.15m therefore should equal around £24,375 pa, so a gross PH income from 'legacy' activity of around £274k pa.

This is all speculation of course.

Plus the profits he makes from touring The Light. Does he pay New Order 1.25% of The Lights gross revenue to reflect the commercial advantage and value the New Order & JD brand has made to contributing to his current commercial profile? If New Order pay 5% to VT on a legacy basis (of which PH gets 1.25% being one quarter of the band) then surely PH should pay 3.75% of The Light Ltd to New Order to reflect their contribution (being three qarters of the band)? I doubt that happens.

None of this reflects the reputational damage inflicted upon New Order by Hook's very public, and very vitriolic, statements which have damaged the brand.

Personally, and this is just my personal opinion, New Order Now Ltd should pay Vitalturn 10% of profits (not turnover) to reflect the brand status at the time of New Order recommencing activity in 2011. Which would make PH's payments from VT 2.5% of the profts, not 1.25%. The 90% retained by NON reflects the risk taken by New Order and commercial investment made, in order to generate a profit through live performances.

Vitalturn should - and again, I am by no mean a lawyer - be responsible for all band income for activity from 1977-2010, and also reciept of publishing for all songs written by / with Hook, so Hook gets his requisite share of royalties from "Live At The Troxy", "Bestival" etc (for writing only). If band income pa for 1977-2010 comes to £1m then, once administration costs are taken into account, that feels like a division of around 25% each. Well, slightly less, as Stephen Hague, Arthur Baker, John Robie, and Keef Allen may have writing credits on the odd song.

Clear as mud! An out of court settlement beckons.

p.s. you can wake up now. x

A useful summing up, which I think covers most things, but I do wonder about the suggestion that The Light might be expected to have a reciprocal agreement over paying NO Ltd a proportion of their tour receipts. He’s not using the brand New Order any more than the clutch of New Order tribute bands are is he? Maybe if he was going out as “Peter Hook’s New Order” with Peter Hook in little letters and New Order in huge font then it’d be more questionable. And if you try to argue that he’s an ex-New Order member and therefore that makes a difference, then you’d have to admit that Bad Lieutenant were doing the same thing when touring and playing NO songs.

Plus I’d also argue that anyone stating this court case and the on-going media bickering since 2011 has “damaged the brand” is clearly ignoring the first rule of publicity (ie all publicity is good publicity). If anything it enhances the media profile of the brand, by keeping it in the limelight and making for a juicy story. How many people have not bought Music Complete or not bought NO gig tickets because they don’t like the situation between Hooky and Barney? I’d say pretty much none (and anyone who genuinely says that they have done exactly that, I’d question their sanity!). If Hooky had left quietly with no qualms, then I’d go so far as to say that the media campaign/reaction on this new NO album would have been pretty dull.

GotBlueEyes wrote:

Plus I’d also argue that anyone stating this court case and the on-going media bickering since 2011 has “damaged the brand” is clearly ignoring the first rule of publicity (ie all publicity is good publicity). If anything it enhances the media profile of the brand, by keeping it in the limelight and making for a juicy story. How many people have not bought Music Complete or not bought NO gig tickets because they don’t like the situation between Hooky and Barney? I’d say pretty much none (and anyone who genuinely says that they have done exactly that, I’d question their sanity!). If Hooky had left quietly with no qualms, then I’d go so far as to say that the media campaign/reaction on this new NO album would have been pretty dull.

Good point.Hooky has actually helped promote Music Complete, thanks Hooky! (yer still a prick though)

There's a distinction between a brand being damaged and a brand losing popularity.

Think of the opposite: Was the New Order brand damaged, or enhanced by Factory's lack of promotion/publicity?

"You think I should still be in New Order aswell, don't you?" "Thanks for not liking Music Complete."

P.S.

^ Ha, Yeah they tweeted a link to that last night. It's only a matter of time now before OK! magazine starts doing Team Hooky v Team NO bitchfest exclusives.