|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Mar 26, 2004 21:26:08 GMT -5
according to The Beatles Unseen Archives, the late 1966 and early 1967 timeline includes
"27 November John films a sequence for Peter Cook and Dudley Moore's BBC programme, Not Only...But Also, which is shown one month later on 26 December"
Why isn't John busy with the impersonator and coverup so soon after the death?
"19 April A legal business partnership, The Beatles and Co, is formed to bind the group together until 1977"
Why would the three remaining Beatles agree to such a thing if they have someone they don't know who's just joined the band?
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Mar 26, 2004 23:39:55 GMT -5
Mal Evans seems to be the one spending all his time with the alleged impersonator, both at his home (after firing the servants or they resigned) and on a trip to Africa. So John is not the one "in charge" of that task. A grief stricken John would not be the best choice I would think...
I don't know, why not? What are the details of this contract, do you know?
|
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Mar 26, 2004 23:41:15 GMT -5
The one part of know is that they were bound together legally until 1977, which is a long time for a group that just got a new member
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Mar 26, 2004 23:46:21 GMT -5
Maybe, but I don't see your point. I'm not being flippant, but without details ("binding them together" can mean just about anything) it's hard to form an opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Mar 26, 2004 23:48:55 GMT -5
the one detail that I have is that the money they make on any music, including solos, will be split between them equally, and they are able to choose things through majority vote rather than through unanimous vote
|
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Mar 26, 2004 23:52:34 GMT -5
as for john being on the show, I suppose it would make sense that he was trying to distract himself from what happened through work
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Mar 27, 2004 0:00:16 GMT -5
The part about the money would be puzzling, because from the point of view of the remaining Beatles, the imposter would get the better end of the deal. It would seem likely at that point that the imposter would not be a big earner without knowing what was coming in the future.
The part about a majority vote rather than unanimous is about power, and that would be more important perhaps. What that does is make the imposter powerless if the others always vote together, right? So he gets money, perhaps not as important or unimportant to the other three, but no power at all to hold up a vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Mar 27, 2004 0:04:46 GMT -5
Paul ended up regretting it when he brought them to court, that was their whole case, he couldn't leave, he had a contract
|
|
