How will this affect Coldplay? I mean who will they have to sign up to?

And, after the fantastico interview when we were all stunned about the revelations that the band is indeed NOT on a 5-album deal, but on an unspecified deal which is longer!

 

Maybe Universal, or Sony... whatever way this goes, I just have the horrible feeling that Coldplay are gonna be forced to do all the things they try and avoid, especially not wanting to be seen as the "Money-making juggernaught" who play to stadia and stadia of millions of fans world-over.

 

And... - HOW WILL THIS AFFECT THE LP5!!!!????

Oh God, WTF?

How will this affect Coldplay? I mean who will they have to sign up to?

And, after the fantastico interview when we were all stunned about the revelations that the band is indeed NOT on a 5-album deal, but on an unspecified deal which is longer!

 

Maybe Universal, or Sony... whatever way this goes, I just have the horrible feeling that Coldplay are gonna be forced to do all the things they try and avoid, especially not wanting to be seen as the "Money-making juggernaught" who play to stadia and stadia of millions of fans world-over.

 

And... - HOW WILL THIS AFFECT THE LP5!!!!????

 

They should just start their own record label. Seriously. Problem(s) solved.

They should just start their own record label. Seriously. Problem(s) solved.

I second that !

I third that. :thumbsup:

Haha, can you say that? :rolleyes:

 

Anyway, I agree. :smug:

Haha,and I fourth that,I think it will be great 'cos they'll have freedom,perhaps they could give more free tracks or something like that...

They should just start their own record label. Seriously. Problem(s) solved.

 

I don't second that to a certain extand cause they always said that they don't want to worry about the legal and financial matters (that are a big part of the deal when you're producing your own stuff). If they fly solo, this will take time on their 'creativ schedule' even if they deleague some stuff to Phil or else... :confused:

I prefer them with EMI and focused only one music than solo and have thier work spoiled by others things...

 

The best solution reminds to go back to independant label, which gives artists freedom AND piece of mind (Have I said 'Fierce Panda'?! :rolleyes: ). A lot of artists like Placebo choose to go back to indie labels...

I'm no businessman, but I don't think that Coldplay's back catalog would be up for grabs. It wouldn't make sense to alienate one of your current artists by giving up and taking away all control of their music.

 

It's more likely that it would be bands that are no longer with the company like The Stones or Pink Floyd or Radiohead where the entire catalog can be packaged up.

from here: http://beatcrave.com/2010-03-22/emi-looks-to-mortgage-its-back-catalog-of-music/

 

EMI Looks To Mortgage Its Back Catalog Of Music

Monday, March 22, 2010 4:42PM - By Jeffrey Hyatt

 

"In an attempt to reverse their financial turmoil, EMI is toying with the idea of licensing its music to the North American market, hoping to raise close to $600 million for the music company, owned by Guy Hands’ company Terra Firma.

 

EMI is reportedly presenting a five-year licensing deal of its music catalog to Warner Music, Universal Music Group and Sony Music.

 

The Wall Street Journal reports that under any deal, sales and distribution of music by EMI artists like the Beatles, Queen, Coldplay and Pink Floyd handled by a rival music company could bring in up to $150.1 million per year for EMI.

 

Times Online notes that while EMI does not need the approval of its artists to license their work, the music company must tread carefully because big earners such as Pink Floyd and Queen have already threatened to take their back catalog elsewhere.

 

The Rolling Stones and Radiohead bolted from EMI following the buyout of the label in 2007.

 

Because EMI (and subsidiaries like Virgin) have not had great luck introducing new bands and selling new music in the US market, a licensing deal actually makes sense; but then there is the timing issue and how long such a major deal would take to work itself out with a potential partner, the sticky issue of how an EMI artist might feel about their back catalog shuttled over to another label, plus any regulatory hurdles that might need to be dealt with.

 

This Hail Mary for EMI, if successful, would prevent the company from falling into the hands of its creditors later this summer. Citigroup, who helped fund the 2007 takeover of the label and is owed big money, would have to approve such a licensing deal between EMI and one of the rival music labels."

 

 

I'm not sure I understand a lot of this. First, does an artist have control of their back catalog? I always thought it was owned by the record company. How could Pink Floyd or Queen threaten to take it elsewhere?

 

And by selling the licensing of the back catalog, does that mean that the new company now has total control over allowing the music to be used however they'd like? So, if this happens, Warner/Sony/Whoever could hawk Coldplay music to sell whatever? Would the long-standing agreements the artists have with EMI be transferred to the new company who are licensing their older stuff?

 

If I hear "Yellow" hawking French's mustard I may kill someone. :angry:

If I hear "Yellow" hawking French's mustard I may kill someone. :angry:

:laugh3: I will boycott the Moutarde de Dijon with you!! :D

:laugh3: I will boycott the Moutarde de Dijon with you!! :D

 

"High Speed" -- STP Motor Oil

"Shiver" -- Hagen Daz Ice Cream

 

Seriously, this could be terrible.

"High Speed" -- STP Motor Oil

"Shiver" -- Hagen Daz Ice Cream

 

Seriously, this could be terrible.

 

"I Ran Away" - Nike (or some other company with running shoes)

"How You See the World" - Pearle Vision

"Talk" - AT&T, Verizon, etc.

 

gag

EMI's future in the balance as loans deadline looms

 

The future of Robbie Williams, Katy Perry and Coldplay record label EMI was on a knife-edge, as its private equity owner Terra Firma scrambled to meet a deadline today to raise around £120 million and avoid breaching banking covenants on £3 billion of loans. Sources suggested the chances were “about 50-50”.

 

New EMI boss Charles Allen was trying to seal a $300 million (£200 million) deal which would allow the record label to “outsource” its sales catalogue of albums in North America. Allen was pinning hopes on bigger rival Universal Music which would take over responsibility for selling and marketing the sales catalogue. EMI has also been talking to Sony Music about the deal.

 

Allies of EMI claimed “outsourcing” the catalogue would enable the label to cut overheads, increase profits and generate an upfront cash windfall, which would mean it avoids breaching its covenants with lender Citigroup.

 

It is essential that EMI concludes the deal today so that the benefits can be included in the balance sheet of parent company Maltby Capital. Citigroup tests the covenants on the basis of EMI's profits relative to the size of its debt on 31 March. Maltby has already warned it is in danger of breaching covenants after recording a £1.75 billion pre-tax loss in February.

 

If Maltby misses today's deadline or Citigroup blocks a deal, Terra Firma chief executive Guy Hands must ask his investors to inject the extra cash by 12 June or else the bank could seize control of the record label.

 

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23820628-emis-future-in-the-balance-as-loans-deadline-looms.do

EMI scraps talks to sell Americas rights

 

EMI has abandoned talks about a rescue deal to sell off its distribution rights in the Americas due to concerns about price, timing and whether the sale could be blocked by Citigroup, holder of all of the music group's £3.2 billion ($4.8B) debts.

 

The collapse of the talks leaves the music group behind the Beatles and Coldplay almost certain to breach the terms of its debts.

 

The UK group had been racing to sign a deal by 4.30pm GMT on Wednesday, after which it must submit figures for a quarterly test on the loans its private equity owners took out for its £4.2B ($6.3B) buy-out in 2007.

 

Both Universal Music and Sony Music had been discussing a possible five-year deal to assume the rights in the US, Canada and Latin America to sell content by EMI artists to physical and digital retailers such as Walmart and Apple's iTunes.

 

People familiar with the negotiations said the talks were plagued by uncertainties, including whether the proposal pitched by Charles Allen, EMI's executive chairman, might fall foul of Citigroup, holder of all its £3.2bn ($4.8B) debts.

 

EMI's Abbey Road Studios declared national landmark

 

EMI had hoped the deal would have raised about £200M ($302M) by selling off the right to future revenues, or securitising, its distribution rights in the Americas.

 

This would have boosted its cash and reduced its net debt, allowing its private equity owner -- Guy Hands' Terra Firma buy-out house -- to meet a key loan-to-value covenant test on its debt at the end of March.

 

The failure of the talks leaves Maltby Capital, EMI's holding company, trying to raise £120M ($181M) from Terra Firma investors as an "equity cure" to make up the shortfall before a mid-June deadline.

 

Citigroup could have attempted to block the deal, which would have required EMI to convince the bank that it was in the interests of all stakeholders.

 

EMI was prepared to argue that it would benefit from putting its sales in the Americas through the more efficient distribution operation of a larger rival, which could negotiate better terms with retailers.

 

However, Mr Hands is already suing the bank, alleging that it tricked him into buying the music group by wrongly claiming a rival bidder was still in the running. Citigroup denies the claims.

 

Mr Hands's battle to keep control of EMI -- pitching private equity's enfant terrible against one of the world's biggest banks -- presents the 50-year-old dealmaker with his biggest test.

 

Unless he can persuade investors to pour in another £120M ($181M), he risks losing control of his biggest deal, which has become the poster child for the excesses of the buy-out bubble, to his bankers.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/03/31/emi.rights.deal.ft/index.html

 

The day the music died

 

He may look like just any other music-loving old hippy, but Guy Hands appears increasingly out of tune with EMI, for which he paid an astronomical £4.2 billion in August 2007.

 

Hands has already admitted that the company is now worth only about half that sum, making it one of the most disastrous private equity takeovers. He is, of course, trying to sue his backer on the deal, Citi, to save face on this foray. But it is his spectacular failure to achieve any of the major changes he thought were so desperately needed when he arrived at the music group that is even more telling.

 

Hands, it will be remembered, not only vilified the previous management for paying for 'fruit and flowers' (a euphemism for industry indulgences), he also suggested the company's artists might like to start working a little harder. At first glance you can see why. Of the 14,000 artists on EMI's books, a third had never made an album and 200 accounted for half the group's sales.

 

But such a cement-boots approach saw the Rolling Stones and Radiohead walk out while Coldplay would not let EMI market their last album. Paul McCartney is set to take his back catalogue elsewhere as might Queen. EMI has also just lost a court case against Pink Floyd so cannot sell individual tracks on the internet.

 

But, not content with falling out with major players on the existing roster, Hands has also set about ensuring that EMI's ability to secure new talent will be damaged by deciding that the A&R guys must give way to the suits. The emphasis has been to shift away from discovering what will sell and on to how to sell. Now, with his plans to pawn the rights to the company's catalogue in the US, Hands appears ready to whittle away EMI's attractions to new signings still further.

 

After all, what up-and-coming artist would want to sign for a label that no longer has the ability to promote them in the world's biggest music market? And without a healthy flow of new signings, just what will happen to EMI in the longer term? EMI has long had a struggle to build sufficient strength in America, but it is still the fourth-biggest music group in the world after Universal, Sony and Warner. It remains one of Britain's decreasing portfolio of global champions.

 

The previous management of EMI flirted with the idea of mergers to address the company's deficient status in the US and to benefit from more muscular global marketing and distribution.

 

If Hands cannot raise £120 million or so from his increasingly queasy investors to make sure he doesn't breach loan agreements with his paymasters at Citi, the American bank will seize control and almost certainly flog the lot to Warner, which is clearly waiting in the wings desperate to swoop.

 

I am really not in favour of losing another British treasure to an overseas buyer, but a swift death at the hands of respectable Warner, with which the business fit is arguably excellent, would surely be better than the slow dismemberment as Hands struggles to stay just above the jaws of his hungry creditor.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk

^So you could say his "hands" are tied.:rolleyes:

Coldplay would not let EMI market their last album.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk

 

I might be a little dense, but I don't understand this. Can someone 'splain it?

Coldplay would not let EMI market their last album.

I might be a little dense, but I don't understand this. Can someone 'splain it?

 

Same here. :confused: Anyone willing to explain what that means?

Wait...how did Coldplay not let EMI market VLV? It says on the CD that it's from EMI...?

In terms of marketing, I think they are more referring to how to advertise the album, not who released it.

 

And is it just me, or does that dude in the article picture look like a pudgy Jerry Springer?

Why wouldn't they allow EMI to market it? It was certainly marketed. It makes no sense. Do they mean they wouldn't allow EMI to use it in commercials, soundtracks, etc.? If so, that's old news.

Maybe they thought EMI would royally screw it up? I assumed EMI marketed it originally, but I guess from this article EMI didn't have much involvement. It's hard to tell. Maybe the band thought they were more in tune with what would work well with marketing (i.e., iTunes for sure).

 

Struggling EMI seeks to strike distribution deal with Sony

 

Music company needs to plug a £100m-plus funding gap or it could face seizure by US investment bank Citigroup

 

Sony Music is ready to strike a deal with EMI to win the distribution rights to the British music company's back catalogue in North and South America, according to industry executives.

 

Talks between Sony's finance director, Kevin Kelleher, and EMI's executive chairman, Charles Allen, could begin in May if advisers working for the two firms can stitch together an outline agreement over the next few weeks.

 

The disclosure comes after last week's failure by EMI to forge an accord with Universal that could have raised vitally needed funds as a June deadline approaches when the company must plug a £100m-plus funding gap. Owned by Guy Hands's Terra Firma private equity group, EMI owes £3bn to Citigroup, the US investment bank that bankrolled the EMI acquisition by Hands on the eve of the credit crunch.

 

Although EMI has already talked to Sony about a distribution deal, negotiations were terminated after a few days as Allen concentrated on a similar transaction with Universal. But those talks broke down after disagreement over price, timing and a fear that Citigroup could block a transaction that would have involved Universal paying EMI an upfront fee of £200m.

 

Allen must present Hands with a detailed plan about how EMI can raise additional funds from outsourcing agreements such as the one suggested to Sony, and from cost-cutting and asset sales, well before 14 June. That is the date by which Hands must have raised £120m from Terra Firma investors to make good the terms of covenants on its debt obligations to Citigroup.

 

Unless the cash is forthcoming, Citigroup will be within its rights to seize control of EMI, whose artists include Robbie Williams and Coldplay. But Hands is eager to demonstrate to investors ahead of the deadline that the company can further boost above-the-line operating profit despite hefty interest payments on its borrowings which pushed the group into a £1.7bn loss last year. To that end, he has mandated Allen to bring in hundreds of millions of new money via another radical reshaping of EMI, which has shed 20% of its workforce since the Terra Firma takeover in 2007. Hands reckons he needs to illustrate how EMI can generate more cash if he is to have any chance of persuading his investors to pump in new money to save the company from ruin.

 

But analysts said it is by no means certain that Hands can secure investors' agreement and rumours are circulating in the City that Citigroup is lining up a sale of EMI to Warner Music and private equity rival KKR if it is forced to take control of the firm.

 

Relations between Terra Firma and Citigroup are poor after the two sides fell out over the terms of a debt-for-equity swap last year and since Hands announced that he was taking the bank to court in New York, alleging it made him pay an artificially inflated price for EMI (£4bn) because its bankers failed to tell him that a rival bidder had pulled out. Citigroup denies the claims and intends to fight the allegations.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk

 

EMI pursuing multiple options to stop Citigroup taking control

 

While EMI may not actually be about to merge Coldplay and Hot Chip in a cost-cutting bid to convince Terra Firma backers to stump up more cash so the faltering major can meet its loan commitments to Citigroup (as our April Fools story suggested last week), it's pretty much the only option not currently being considered by the music firm's management, who continue to face the prospect of the bank seizing ownership come June.

 

Although the major remains tight lipped about its plans to stop Citigroup taking over and, most likely, splitting the music company up for sale, various media reported on various options currently being considered this weekend. As reported on Friday, persuading the backers of owners Terra Firma to provide the £120 million needed to meet this year's loan fees is currently the most realistic option and, according to The Times, some sort of bonus scheme is now being concocted to ensure those investors who help out will specifically benefit from any future turn around in EMI's fortunes. Executive Chairman Charles Allen is expected to present a formal proposal to Terra Firma backers in the next fortnight.

 

If that doesn't work, both The Times and The Telegraph seem convinced that the other last minute option is to sell a minority stake in EMI, probably to a rival equity group. That deal would ensure Terra Firma maintain its majority stake and therefore ultimate control of the music firm, though presumably any new investors would want some say in the way the company is run to ensure a return on its cash investment. Whether Citigroup would need to approve any equity sale in the major isn't clear, though sources close to EMI and its owners seem to think this is a realistic if last choice option.

 

Meanwhile, The Guardian reported yesterday that talks with Sony Music regarding a mega-licensing deal to cover the whole American market might be back on. As previously reported, EMI was in talks with both Sony and Universal Music about its rivals paying a large sum of money to get the rights to distribute its recordings catalogue in the whole North American market for five years. Word was talks with both rivals collapsed last week, but The Guardian says that the Sony talks stopped because EMI bosses preferred the Universal option, but now the latter has fallen through, because the two sides couldn't agree a price, talks with Sony may resume later this month.

 

Although it does now seem that the EMI/Universal licensing deal failed because of disagreements over price, speculation remains that both possible licensees were worried that either Citigroup or key artists could block the arrangement. Former Fox News gossip man Roger Friedman, now writing at Showbiz411.com, claims it was the latter that actually scuppered things, and that talks with both Universal and Sony fell through when EMI admitted that its contracts with certain key artists - including The Beatles, Pink Floyd and Coldplay - meant their recordings couldn't be part of the licensing arrangement.

 

How true that is we don't know, though what recording contracts said about another major getting control of key artists' music was an issue we raised several times when reports of the big licensing plan first emerged.

 

Despite all that, it's said Sony remain interested in the proposed licensing arrangement, albeit only for the whole American market, so taking in South America too. All of which suggests, Coldchip aside, EMI bosses really are still considering all options to try and stop their bank foreclosing on that multi-billion dollar loan. But the clock is ticking, it remains to be seen what can be achieved before June.

 

http://newsblog.thecmuwebsite.com

Two words:

1. SOAP

2. OPERA