Can Shamrock Holdings cut ties with Scooter?

[Lighter 15,376]

So Taylor can buy her masters back from them without any complications from scooter?

@ Business Little Monsters here what are your thoughts

[Miel 15,009]

I'm assuming that there's some sort of contractual stipulation between Shamrock and Scooter, that still benefits him, no?

If Taylor's lucky, there could be an expiration date to it.

[Lighter 15,376]

17 minutes ago, Miel said:

I'm assuming that there's some sort of contractual stipulation between Shamrock and Scooter, that still benefits him, no?

If Taylor's lucky, there could be an expiration date to it.

Yes that was why Scooter didn’t want Shamrock to contact Taylor

[jimmytimestep 2,703]

The whole thing is very messy to me.

I assume Shamrock reached out to her in the hopes of having her pull back on re-recording in order to protect their investment. Their downfall was the fact that Scooter was going to make residuals, which is what gave Swift cause to shut them down like she did.

I suppose they should have done more research before agreeing to the deal. To me, it sounds like Scooter is getting out of this with a lot of publicity and cash, regardless of the outcome; And Shamrock is gonna get a poor return on their investment unless they pull some shady legal tricks on Swift.

Messy messy messy. But I'm proud of Taylor for standing her ground. I hope it doesn't come back to bite her in the a**. It sounds like she'll be competing against herself for advertising dollars moving forward.

 

[jimmytimestep 2,703]

2 hours ago, Miel said:

I'm assuming that there's some sort of contractual stipulation between Shamrock and Scooter, that still benefits him, no?

If Taylor's lucky, there could be an expiration date to it.

Maybe. Even still, it doesn't benefit anyone to sit around on masters from the past ten+ years while we wait for Scooter's residual period to expire. That could be upward of ten years from now, and by that time, she'll have three or four new albums out for public consumption. 

[Lighter 15,376]

8 minutes ago, jimmytimestep said:

The whole thing is very messy to me.

I assume Shamrock reached out to her in the hopes of having her pull back on re-recording in order to protect their investment. Their downfall was the fact that Scooter was going to make residuals, which is what gave Swift cause to shut them down like she did.

I suppose they should have done more research before agreeing to the deal. To me, it sounds like Scooter is getting out of this with a lot of publicity and cash, regardless of the outcome; And Shamrock is gonna get a poor return on their investment unless they pull some shady legal tricks on Swift.

Messy messy messy. But I'm proud of Taylor for standing her ground. I hope it doesn't come back to bite her in the a**. It sounds like she'll be competing against herself for advertising dollars moving forward.

 

Agreed, Shamrock didn’t think the investment through so now they’re the baggage carrier 

[Lighter 15,376]

23 minutes ago, jimmytimestep said:

Maybe. Even still, it doesn't benefit anyone to sit around on masters from the past ten+ years while we wait for Scooter's residual period to expire. That could be upward of ten years from now, and by that time, she'll have three or four new albums out for public consumption. 

Hi came back to ask if it’s possible for them to pay Scooter’s residuals right away?

[weed 73,857]

Shamrock goofed up. It seems Taylor is open to working with them but buying her masters without talking to her at all before it’s done 

Scooter was smart w this lol as evil as he is 

[Lighter 15,376]

11 minutes ago, weed said:

Shamrock goofed up. It seems Taylor is open to working with them but buying her masters without talking to her at all before it’s done 

Scooter was smart w this lol as evil as he is 

They could’ve called Taylor behind Scooter’s back imo

[jimmytimestep 2,703]

9 hours ago, Lighter said:

Hi came back to ask if it’s possible for them to pay Scooter’s residuals right away?

They could but what difference does it make? The fact of the matter is that she doesn’t want him making any additional money off her music, no matter when he gets it. 
 

also scooters camp likely wouldn’t allow that. Residuals are paid in percentages so he would make money depending on what they make from the use of the masters. If they were going to just pay him more upfront, there wouldn’t have been a need to negotiate residuals in the first place.

[Lighter 15,376]

1 hour ago, jimmytimestep said:

They could but what difference does it make? The fact of the matter is that she doesn’t want him making any additional money off her music, no matter when he gets it. 
 

also scooters camp likely wouldn’t allow that. Residuals are paid in percentages so he would make money depending on what they make from the use of the masters. If they were going to just pay him more upfront, there wouldn’t have been a need to negotiate residuals in the first place.

Yeah but I guess that’s a possibility since Taylor’s going to devalue it and paying upfront will give scooter at least a higher amount compared to years of earnings from a weak set of masters

[jimmytimestep 2,703]

2 hours ago, Lighter said:

Yeah but I guess that’s a possibility since Taylor’s going to devalue it and paying upfront will give scooter at least a higher amount compared to years of earnings from a weak set of masters

what's the point though? Taylor doesn't want Scooter profiting from the music, so if Shamrock spends more money cutting him out, it still doesn't meet her requests.

Either way its a stronger investment for Taylor to re-record and campaign against her old masters. And it's a lousy investment for Shamrock either way.