Hooky's at it again

Consequence of Sound interview

1 - He. Walked. Out. Of. The. Band.

2 - He was more than happy to carry on without Gillian.

3 - He still gets his 25% from the back catalogue no problem, the 1% was in relation to New Order's earnings from 2011 onwards (i.e. without Hooky).

4 - He was telling the press he was going to fuck New Order anyway he could. Is it any wonder Barney won't talk to him?

Huge victim complex going on here.

^Yep, i agree with all your points.

Never fails to amaze me how he complains about how NO carried on without him, but he LEFT the band.They didn't kick him out, he LEFT of his own choice.

And i've still never seen or read an interviewer put that very point to Hooky.Why has no interviewer ever said 'But you left, Hooky.You weren't kicked out, you LEFT.Odd that no interviewer has ever said that to him.Strange.

The interviewers are probably told, in advance, that they shouldn't ask hard questions or Hooky will walk out.

He needs to let go now doesn't he

He's going to die a very bitter man

The Ruts wrote: Consequence of Sound interview

1 - He. Walked. Out. Of. The. Band.

2 - He was more than happy to carry on without Gillian.

3 - He still gets his 25% from the back catalogue no problem, the 1% was in relation to New Order's earnings from 2011 onwards (i.e. without Hooky).

4 - He was telling the press he was going to fuck New Order anyway he could. Is it any wonder Barney won't talk to him?

Huge victim complex going on here.

Agreed. He sounds like a pompous ego, fake ass in this.

As for your point #3 .. I've asked on here before, but nobody ever answered it.. but where does everyone get the info that he still receives 25% of the back catalogue? Just curious. If so and only 1% of current stuff..then that seems very fair!

lee wrote: He needs to let go now doesn't he

He's going to die a very bitter man

He needs therapy.

SeasoningPacket wrote:

The Ruts wrote: Consequence of Sound interview

1 - He. Walked. Out. Of. The. Band.

2 - He was more than happy to carry on without Gillian.

3 - He still gets his 25% from the back catalogue no problem, the 1% was in relation to New Order's earnings from 2011 onwards (i.e. without Hooky).

4 - He was telling the press he was going to fuck New Order anyway he could. Is it any wonder Barney won't talk to him?

Huge victim complex going on here.

Agreed. He sounds like a pompous ego, fake ass in this.

As for your point #3 .. I've asked on here before, but nobody ever answered it.. but where does everyone get the info that he still receives 25% of the back catalogue? Just curious. If so and only 1% of current stuff..then that seems very fair!

Pretty sure the band have said this in a statement

lee wrote: only 1% of current stuff..then that seems very fair!

Hmmm. Not sure I agree with that. 1%, if indeed that is what he is receiving, isn't very fair at all. really. IMHO, anyway.

What are we talking about when we say 'current stuff'? Are we classing gigs, TV appearances, sponsorship deals (Stray Dog beer etc)? You have to remember that half the reason anyone wants to see New Order is because of their ridiculously good back catalogue. A set of songs co-written by Hooky.

The band are not generating ticket sales based on their latest (i.e. non-Hooky) LP, no matter how good it was (and it was great!).

If the 'current stuff' purely relates to 'Music Complete' and associated singles sales, it's probably 'more fair'. Well, relatively speaking.

However, we need to think that, although Hooky took no part in creating this music, he still would've generated some of the income for the band in respect of this LP. This is based purely on the probability that most punters who bought the record did so because it was 'New Order' and they all remember songs like 'Blue Monday', 'True Faith', 'BLT' and 'Temptation'. These are songs co-written by Hook.

Imagine, if you will, that instead of being composed by New Order, 'Music Complete' was released by another group, comprised of unknown 60-year old musicians. It would be just as good, but do we think it would've sold just as well? Seems unlikely.

(As an aside, 'age' is so important here. If it was made by a bunch of unknown 20-year olds, it would probably have 'made' their careers and sold tonnes more. Mainly because the music press would've championed them as the next 'big thing').

So, anyway, if Hooky did only receive 1% of 'current stuff' (whatever that may be), I'm not surprised that he took umbrage at it.

But, this is all a moot point. Firstly, we only have Hooky's word that he only received 1%. Not that I particularly doubt him but, as one of the two parties concerned here, he is not going to be giving us a particularly objective viewpoint. Secondly, I think this was what the court case was all about. The fact that this has been 'settled' probably means that Hooky has increased his percentage.

But none of us know the details here, and there's a lot of speculation (including in my assumptions above).

Reading the above back, I certainly seem pro-Hooky in this regard. I'm not really.

I just think that both sides appear to have made questionable choices. The difference is that New Order have played their cards fairly close to their chests, whilst Hooky has been singing from the rooftops to anyone who'll listen (including a few personal insults in the past). The insults are the only thing I really have issue with and, thankfully, he doesn't see to be throwing these about as much as he once did (although he's obviously still annoyed at the situation).

SeasoningPacket wrote: As for your point #3 .. I've asked on here before, but nobody ever answered it.. but where does everyone get the info that he still receives 25% of the back catalogue?

That's how royalties work. Barring the odd collaborator like Stephen Hague or John Robie (or swapping Phil for Gillian during the Sirens era), most New Order songs are credited to Gilbert/Hook/Morris/Sumner. He gets 1/4 of the royalties for any song bearing his name. I don't believe any of the remaining members ever contested that, they took issue with Hook continuing to receive royalties AFTER he left just because they decided to keep using the name New Order.

Anyway, it's one reason Hook is pushing so strongly for the box sets and the band seem happy to include him in the press about them - he's getting royalties off the back catalog.

perspexorange wrote: ... whilst Hooky has been singing from the rooftops to anyone who'll listen

(Quoting myself, here.)

To be fair, as the person who has lost far more (i.e. being a part of a legendary band), he probably would feel the need to stress his point and tell us his side of things. It's probably only natural that he, as the outsider and 'lone voice', would need to make himself heard.

So I can kind of see why he has done it.

Man, I am being generous today...

Apologies - from my post two messages up, I quoted 'SeasoningPacket' but deleted the wrong bits of code, so it looks like 'lee' quoted it.

I've tried to edit my post, but the board flags it as SPAM, and I can't change it.

Sorry to both parties.

perspexorange wrote:

perspexorange wrote: ... whilst Hooky has been singing from the rooftops to anyone who'll listen

(Quoting myself, here.)

To be fair, as the person who has lost far more (i.e. being a part of a legendary band), he probably would feel the need to stress his point and tell us his side of things. It's probably only natural that he, as the outsider and 'lone voice', would need to make himself heard.

So I can kind of see why he has done it.

Man, I am being generous today...

I think you are being too kind.

I can't remember the dates but think things turned nasty (er) around the time Hook bought the Hacienda rights and used it to brand anything he could. I'm sure it's on Companies House website. I know the Other Three didn't want anything to do with it but they were original owners and by Hook's logic helped build the brand which he is now profiting from.

Remember he's a multi-millionaire living in a Cheshire mansion, Ferrari car owner with his finger in as many HAC/FAC51 pies as he can. I think it all comes down to ego, acting hard on stage with the Salford Punk attitude - a lot of people like that and he's playing the role of outsider or victim(?) well.

It's been 10 years + and time to let it go and look to the future instead of wallowing in the past.

PS: He was the worst DJ I've ever heard.

tapebias wrote:

perspexorange wrote:

perspexorange wrote: ... whilst Hooky has been singing from the rooftops to anyone who'll listen

(Quoting myself, here.)

To be fair, as the person who has lost far more (i.e. being a part of a legendary band), he probably would feel the need to stress his point and tell us his side of things. It's probably only natural that he, as the outsider and 'lone voice', would need to make himself heard.

So I can kind of see why he has done it.

Man, I am being generous today...

I think you are being too kind.

I can't remember the dates but think things turned nasty (er) around the time Hook bought the Hacienda rights and used it to brand anything he could. I'm sure it's on Companies House website. I know the Other Three didn't want anything to do with it but they were original owners and by Hook's logic helped build the brand which he is now profiting from.

Remember he's a multi-millionaire living in a Cheshire mansion, Ferrari car owner with his finger in as many HAC/FAC51 pies as he can. I think it all comes down to ego, acting hard on stage with the Salford Punk attitude - a lot of people like that and he's playing the role of outsider or victim(?) well.

It's been 10 years + and time to let it go and look to the future instead of wallowing in the past.

PS: He was the worst DJ I've ever heard.

Lol remember that clip of him DJing back around 2005 screaming like a lunatic and just thrashing around?

Anyways, tried looking on the Companies House site and not sure if I'm looking it up right. Everything shows someone elses name and not sure if it's just as Hacienda or..?

perspexorange wrote:

So, anyway, if Hooky did only receive 1% of 'current stuff' (whatever that may be), I'm not surprised that he took umbrage at it.

It's to do with the use of the name 'New Order.' One NOOL user summed it up in this post:

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.

And New Order made it clear it wasn't about royalties.

Ignore It and It might go away.

So bitter. While I get that New Order could do more back catalogue live using AoC as part of his dig that New Order always bring back songs after the Light has done them is a bit rich given I think New Order was doing that in 2011 before the Light did it.

Also, you’ve hawked and bellowed out most New Order albums on your tours so it’s always going to be the way if. NO bring back anything old that “the Light did it first.”

To be honest he’s lost a lot of goodwill people had towards him and a dignified silence while the lawyers took care of it would have done him more favours.

It’s not easy to say all this as a fan of New Order and Hooky - I’ve seen Revenge, Monaco and Freebass live - I’ve not seen the Light but I’ve definitely seen the light over the last few years ....