Talk:Seltaeb

Mr Byrne is off and running

The start.--andreasegde (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A page number for "Norman, Philip" would be good.--andreasegde (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't this be called "Seltaeb" instead of Nicky Byrne?--andreasegde (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That’s a good idea. It would then have more scope, as you say. Will you do? Also, if a mention and a link went into relevant main articles, then others might be able to add stuff too. --Patthedog (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest the same thing: either that or The Beatles merchandising or something similar. It certainly doesn't read like a biography of Nicky Byrne: nothing about who he is, where he was born, how old he is etc. I know it's early days but the article really needs a proper introduction to give some context. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Seltaeb it is, then.--andreasegde (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That’s great. Well done. I do intend to put more effort into this soon! I’m just really short on time right now. I’m determined to get more on Byrne. He was described as “much older than his partners” who were about mid twenties in ‘64. So, poor (rich) old sod could be in his dotage. --Patthedog (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I probably won't do much more as all those numbers make my brain hurt, and it's slightly depressing to read about how massive the rip-off was. Have fun.--andreasegde (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Incredible, wasn’t it? More money up front than Epstein and the band were going to make from the music! Thanks.--Patthedog (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It was the original Rock 'n Roll Swindle. After looking at the figures I now think about the page I found (but can't again :( that talked about the 2 threatening phone calls saying Epstein would have an accident soon, and that after Epstein was dead four NEMS people sat round not knowing what to do, when the phone rings and a newspaper asks if it's true about a tipoff that Epstein is seriously ill. Hmmm... There were millions of dollars involved. I'll have a look at Spitz, and see if the calls are mentioned.--andreasegde (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I changed the infobox to a business one.--andreasegde (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Brian Epstein & Seltaeb

...I think it is possible to have a perspective as well. For example, John thinks it “absurd” that Seltaeb gets mentioned. He thinks it’s not important - that’s his opinion. I believe it is relevant and so that’s my opinion. Neither view changes the facts though. O.K: on May 13th 1967 Epstein was admitted to the Priory Clinic in Roehampton to undergo treatment for insomnia, agitation, anxiety and depression. The treatment was generally regarded as unsuccessful. He was also extremely worried that The Beatles would not renew their contracts with him in the Autumn, quote Peter Brown: “ … he [Epstein] was worried by what he saw as The Beatles growing discontent. They [The Beatles] were slowly hearing bits and pieces of the Seltaeb fiasco…”. There’s a lot of that sort of stuff so I put it to you that Epstein’s problems were made worse by the Seltaeb episode. I think we can establish that Seltaeb made him worry that The Beatles wouldn’t renew their contracts, and that thought made him depressed. So it was part of the chain. If he was depressed, then Seltaeb had to be a contributing factor, not saying it was the only one though. Epstein’s deceit can easily be cited. “… they [NEMS] had given it away! An incomprehensible sum signed away for nothing! He wondered what The Beatles would say when they found out. He decided it best they know nothing about it for the time being (he never told them) and plotted to keep it from them”. Peter Brown. But it will be elsewhere too. --Patthedog (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, this article is still very much work in progress. I’m not sure why its under pressure to be perfect in every way right this minute. Isn’t normal procedure to tag anything that needs citing? Good points have been made and will be digested and taken into account. And there’s nothing to stop others helping out.--Patthedog (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well said, as always. I'm on it as well.--andreasegde (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I see it's up for GA so I thought I'd have a quick scan in case I can offer anything, and straight off: despite that extended discussion we all had, I'm surprised to see that while the Lead includes "Jacobs was found hanged in his garage in 1969", it makes no mention of Epstein's death. Surely it needs to? PL290 (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Your edit looks good to me. Thanks PL290. --Patthedog (talk) 09:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

GA

I think this is extremely close to a GA rating. Any takers?--andreasegde (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, me.--andreasegde (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was being a bit of a coward here. I’ve no idea what’s involved - I’ve read it can be a bloodbath. Tell me what I can do to help.--Patthedog (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Nah, a GAR is alright. It's the FAC (Featured Article) you should never go near. They tear you to bits and then stuff said bits down your gullet just to make the point. :)--andreasegde (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...

I think that Byrne left the percentages blank 'cos he was gonna haggle about them a bit, but lost his nerve when Jacobs asked him what percentage he should write. Byrne then said 10%,and Jacobs wrote it in. This is where it gets interesting: I think Byrne thought Jacobs was asking how much he (Byrne) was going to get, but Jacobs really meant what NEMS were going to get (still with me?...) Jacobs asks Byrne, "What percentage should I put in here?" Byrne says, "10%", and Jacobs puts the percentage in the NEMS box, thinking that is what Byrne was giving NEMS.

It was a massive mistake on Jacobs' part not to know about percentages, but I think it was more shocking than that. I'm surmising that Byrne got the contract back and saw that he'd got 90% and not 10%. He must have been dancing on the ceiling. So what better story than to say he (Byrne) had engineered it like that?

No wonder Jacobs topped himself, and Byrne built the reputation of a big-time hustler. Nobody in his right mind would ask for 90% - it would have been taking the piss, hence the fake story.--andreasegde (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don’t have Spitz’s book, so I assume from what you have put in that the percentages were agreed at the last moment and then written in by Jacobs himself? This could easily have led to a misunderstanding if only the two of them were present (no third party on either side to check the details). I agree that 10% was an absolute piss take, but Byrne may have thought he was in for a major ball busting session - hence the low base. But it was a disaster waiting to happen given Epstein’s & Jacobs’ total lack of interest - something Byrne must have perceived as utterly surreal! We’ll never know the truth. The Beatles themselves probably would not have done any better though, as they later went on to demonstrate with Apple!--Patthedog (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly right, we'll never know, and even Macca can't remember who he just divorced. Hold on, that's alright, though. :))--andreasegde (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"as they later went on to demonstrate with Apple". Hold on, that's a great line to put in, as Lennon and McCartney both had disparaging views on Epstein as businessman. The kettles calling the pot black. --andreasegde (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that the article still doesn't mention this way of looking at it, as I seem to recall it was presented that way in one of the first Beatles biographies I read (I forget which, but it may have been Peter Brown's book "The Love You Make"). The story proffered was definitely that Epstein was being offered all the proceeds minus 10%, but that he thought he was being offered 10%. I can't have been the only one to have read this account. Anyone? I doubt I got the idea from this thread as I wasn't active here much in 2009.

On the other hand, "Baby You're a Rich Man: Suing the Beatles for Fun and Profit" page 19, says that Byrne was asking for 90% and was amazed that Jacobs didn't question it. --kingboyk (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Money

I think this sentence, "The court case and its effect was estimated to have lost NEMS and The Beatles approximately $100,000,000" should read, "approximately $100,000,000, give or take a few quid and some spare change." (Don't worry, I'm only joking... :))--andreasegde (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

GA

It's looking very good now.--andreasegde (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Well done. When will the GA action start?--Patthedog (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

When an editor who feels like doing a GA review looks here and picks it from the list. PL290 (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's [here], but I don't expect it to be reviewed until Autumn. Having said that, as I always do, I am nearly always proved wrong by somebody reviewing it next week.--andreasegde (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I was bang right, for once. You never can tell...--andreasegde (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Money, Part II

This bouncing between dollars and pounds is confusing. What to do? Only dollars (as it was an American-based company) or pounds (because NEMS controlled it/had a stake in it) or a link stating the difference between dollars/pounds then, and now? Don't ask me, I'm totally crap at maths.--andreasegde (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Err, right. Do you think that if it’s a direct quote, then it should stay like that? Also, did the court cases take place in America? That would make it relevant too. I think the exchange rate then was something like 4 to 1 in favour of the Dollar! £400,000,000! Fuck me!--Patthedog (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL! :)) Don't even try to work it out in food vouchers today. I saw something somewhere that converted it automatically. I'll have a look.--andreasegde (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've done the money stuff to dollars and what it's worth today, but it made my brain twirl, my jaw drop and my eyes pop out. As Marlon Brando said in Apocalypse Now, "The hor-ror... the hor-ror..." --andreasegde (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've changed some of these to more round figures, and I'll try to get the rest - it's quite misleading to give an exact dollars-and-cents figure for an inflation-adjusted value, on the whole, since it gives a sense of spurious precision. Especially for very large values, simply using a retail-price inflator won't always give a meaningful answer, and it certainly won't give one accurate to several significant figures. Shimgray | talk | 01:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

...and put them in footnotes, because that seems a little tidier. It was a bit odd to break up the text every couple of lines with an alternative value. Shimgray | talk | 01:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Byrne

There I was thinking that Byrne was some "young socialite", looking a little bit like Brian Jones in blue velvet jacket and ash-blond bouffant hair, and I found out that he was born around 1928 (see ref about him living in Trowbridge). He was around 36 when he got the Seltaeb contract, meaning he was six/seven years older than Epstein. He probably wore a tweed jacket with leather patches on the the elbows and smoked a pipe. A young socialite, my arse...--andreasegde (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ha! More like Sid James probably in “Carry On Up The Mersey”. It would make a good dramatisation - as you’ve said already, the original rock & roll swindle. Kenneth Williams as Epstein? Ooooh - stop messing about!--Patthedog (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This could run and run... Kenneth Williams as Epstein, Frankie Howerd as Jacobs, Sid James as Byrne, and Charles Hawtrey as Lord Peregrine Eliot? (with Bernard Bresslaw as Epstein's dad?)--andreasegde (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hattie Jacques would have to be his mum, but I love the idea of Charles Hawtrey as Lord Peregrine Eliot! A possible cameo appearance could be Liberace as Allen Klein? It couldn't be more ridiculous than what actually happened anyway. --Patthedog (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles couldn't be in it visually, so they would be heard banging on doors shouting, "Where's da bleedin' money Brian?!?"--andreasegde (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

And Epstein (Williams) would utter: “Infamy, infamy, they’ve all got it in for me!” Frankie Howerd would have to then retort "Oooh, you should be so lucky!" I'm even beginning to mince about now with my hand on my hip. --Patthedog (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This is good. I found this quote from Jacobs he made a few days before somebody kicked the stool away: "I'm in terrible trouble, they're all after me."--andreasegde (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Photos

Any chance of sneaking another in? The photo police can't really complain if the business was scuppered back in the 60s.--andreasegde (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been scanning a few photos of Seltaeb products from magazine articles. Oh! I've also just had a look at how to upload an image - I think I need to engage a barrister.--Patthedog (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You just have to copy the tags from another photo, including the fact that the business is no longer operating.--andreasegde (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Percentages

I have just read that Byrne charged 10% commission to the merchandisers for a licence, meaning he got 10 dollars out of every hundred, and then gave 10% of that to NEMS, which was.......... 1 dollar. It would make a "steely eyed missile man" accountant weep...--andreasegde (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Contract renewal?

From The Beatles Diary (Miles): January 27 1967 - The Beatles and Brian Epstein signed a new nine-year worldwide recording contract with EMI Records, updating their previous deal, which had expired the previous day.

From the article: Epstein feared that The Beatles would not renew their contracts with him—due to expire in the Autumn of 1967—if they discovered the truth about Seltaeb.[29][30]

Something's not right here...--andreasegde (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I get it now. Management contract and recording contract, but why would he be worried about his own contract if they signed a nine-year worldwide recording contract with EMI? They trusted him on that one, even though it was probably crap...--andreasegde (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Jacob's death

I'm having a problem with Jacobs' death. Was it in 1969, or 1967 (two years/a few weeks/one week after Epstein's)? I have seen conflicting reports.--andreasegde (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Found it.--andreasegde (talk) 12:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Worried?

"The biggest key was the 25 percent clause that Brian had hidden from them. When he had renegotiated their royalty deal with EMI (and with Capitol in the United States), he had inserted a clause guaranteeing that 25 percent of all Beatle record royalties would continue to go to NEMS for nine years, even if the Beatles didn't renew their management contract with Brian. The Beatles had signed the contract without scrutinizing the fine print." (Flippo, p. 244).

No need for him to be worried at all.--andreasegde (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Seltaeb/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Nice article overall but just a few issues to clear up on.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   Recommend that the lead section be spruced up a bit to summarize the entire article.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Many books are listed in the references section that are not used in the notes section. What particular books were actually used in the writing of this article? Also recommend tidying up page numbers to p. 495 instead of p495 etc.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   What is the source used for dollar conversions to the present value? You might also consider not using them as the article is obviously written to explain the 1960s time period, making the time period of the figures obvious.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Recommend that the replaceable argument be changed to note that unless a photo in the public domain can be found, the photo is currently the only one available. Conceivably there could be a public domain photo out there somewhere or one could be created in the future.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   You need some sort of caption for the infobox photo.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Where I've said recommend, it is an issue that won't hold up the passing to GA but are things I thought would improve the article. I'm placing the review on hold for now. --Brad (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Response

O.K. Reworked the lead section - hopefully addressing the sprucing matter. Andreasegde, what do you think about removing the current monetary examples? I took out the first one, but just wonder if that one should stay - to make the point, but all the others could go. --Patthedog (talk) 10:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, hold your horsefeathers. Looking through the whole thing properly, there was only just the one current $ example anyway as far as I can tell - until I removed it! Figures quoted in the article are the original sums aren’t they? --Patthedog (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the citations throughout the article which lead to the notes section giving the current dollar value. --Brad (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, sorry. They don’t particularly offend me tucked away as they are, and they are significant if one were trying to interpret the piece in real terms - for example. I believe andreasegde used some software he has for the conversions. Perhaps reference to it could be made somehow - would that make it acceptable? --Patthedog (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this, Patthedog, usually a reviewer puts a note on my page. I had conversion tables in a few weeks ago, but someone came along and made them as they are now. I don't mind if all if today's values go, to be honest. Just leave the original 60s amounts, which are good enough.--andreasegde (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have just cleaned the books. I had to take three or four out, but all the rest are used as refs, even if only once.--andreasegde (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have also just cleaned the "money today", because they were substantial sums back then, and are quoted as that, so using software or "rounding the numbers out" (an editor's comments) just befuddles the reader, as I think now.--andreasegde (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Have put a line under the info box photo.--andreasegde (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The refs, such as "p45" were agreed upon by The Beatles Project, as they simplified them.--andreasegde (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Excrement! That is that then, if the current page numbering format is alright. Yes? --Patthedog (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Glad to pass the article now. That wasn't so bad was it? --Brad (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Superfluous! Thanks.--Patthedog (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Suitability of reference used in article

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:BEATLES#Craig Cross. Ojorojo (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC) —Ojorojo (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks User:Ojorojo. I had removed the one citation left by Cross, and change it by P.Norman's Shout! , that has a similar stance about the yacht Alexcalamaro (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Minor niggles about clarity

After reading the article I'm not entirely clear on how or why Seltaeb no longer control the rights to Beatles merchandise, nor when that happened.

The article tells us that "Epstein accused Seltaeb of not accounting properly, and cancelled its power to grant licences" and that this was subject to litigation which Epstein lost but that the judgement was set-aside. Did the set-aside give legal authority to Epstein cancelling Seltaeb's authority to licence? When did this set-aside happen and when did Epstein set up Maximus Enterprises?

Also, I may be wrong but I think Beatles merchandise is now licenced by Apple Corps. A sentence or two telling us where the rights flowed through to the present day would be most welcome.

Other than that - excellent article, a well-deserved GA. It's a pity Andrew is no longer editing and had a (perfectly understandable) phobia of FAR as this would have made for a fascinating Featured Article. --kingboyk (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Some articles about Apple and merchandise rights but alas not mentioning how and when those rights came to Apple (I'm sure the sources are out there but I don't have time to look at the moment:

• https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/the-beatles-sign-merchandise-deal-with-universal-music-86508/
• https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/the-beatles-sign-north-america-merch-deal-with-sony-musics-the-thread-shop/
• https://www.nme.com/news/music/the-beatles-apple-corps-wins-77-million-in-fake-merchandise-lawsuit-2611783 ($77 million! Good luck collecting on it though)

--kingboyk (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah Kingboyk! I had some early input into this and could probably try and improve it as you suggest. Yeah, I too miss Andrew and his enthusiasm and humour. Patthedog (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)