Hooky in the Manc Evening News

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.