Template Agreement for buying, sharing and splitting cost of PA - has anyone got one I could use?

[TimR]

2 hours ago, Greg Edwards69 said:

As an aside. IIRC, Metallica gave $1m to Robert Trujillo for joining the band.

 

I was thinking about this the other day. When you're surrounded by millionaires you don't really want to be staying in the budget hotel and living in a condo. Doesn't really look good. 

[Dad3353]

29 minutes ago, TimR said:

 

I was thinking about this the other day. When you're surrounded by millionaires you don't really want to be staying in the budget hotel and living in a condo. Doesn't really look good. 

 

? ? ? I'm not seeing the issue here. 

[Dan Dare]

9 hours ago, Jack said:

Add me to the "giving £600 to some strangers I met down the pub in the hope I'll get some gigs soon seems like a bad idea" camp.

 

Hardly. We're talking about a situation where you become a full member of a partnership/collective (call it whatever you like), where you receive an equal share of the earnings of said partnership and where, if you leave or it breaks up, you have the right to an equal share of its jointly-owned assets. This can be set out in a written agreement - probably a good idea to do so.

 

4 hours ago, Greg Edwards69 said:

As an aside. IIRC, Metallica gave $1m to Robert Trujillo for joining the band.

 

If you were in his class and people were knocking on your door to get you to work with them, you wouldn't be on here arguing about buying a £3k PA. And of course, any large, successful act will own several truckloads of jointly used gear - PA, lights, etc, etc, which will have been bought with the money the act earns.

 

5 hours ago, Woodinblack said:

 

Yeh, but the band also needs the £2/3k keyboard rack the keyboard player entirely owns, and the band needs the £2k bass and bass rig the bass player entirely owns, the £2-3k guitars the guitarist has soley paid for and all the drums that the drummer entirely owns. So does the singer with his £100 mic also contribute to those?

 

Read my previous comments and I you will see I suggest what a singer who plays no instrument should be expected to do (which is to provide a reasonable vocal-only PA - should cost about the same as the amounts you mention that other members have spent on their gear). As for a band needing the equipment owned by individual members for their own use, you are correct. However, a band is not simply a collection of individuals/soloists. So who pays for gear that is needed in order for the band to function that is not owned/solely used by individual members? Many on here seem to believe "Not me, guv". Guess they'll have to stick to playing solo.

Edited July 18, 2023 by Dan Dare

[Dan Dare]

9 hours ago, MGBrown said:

Has anyone on here ever paid money up front to join a band?

 

Me. I joined a busy, established function band with a full diary. I put in (via deductions from my share of gig fees, not as an upfront payment) an amount to make me an equal partner and owner of the band's jointly used gear - PA, lights, etc. It worked out very well. Over the next few years, I got back my original investment many times over. When we split, we divvied up the jointly-owned gear and sold or used it individually.

Edited July 18, 2023 by Dan Dare

[TimR]

2 hours ago, Dad3353 said:

 

? ? ? I'm not seeing the issue here. 

 

Band goes on tour. Eat in expensive restaurants. Stay in big hotels. Own expensive gear. 

 

New guy stays in Motel, plays Squire and eats McDonalds.

 

No issue? 

[Dad3353]

Just now, TimR said:

 

Band goes on tour. Eat in expensive restaurants. Stay in big hotels. Own expensive gear. 

 

New guy stays in Motel, plays Squire and eats McDonalds.

 

No issue? 

 

Not for me; and you..? 

[TimR]

It's horses for courses though. You just cut down your musician pool if you're making financial demands from them up front.

 

If the original band members own the gear jointly then everyone who plays should be putting something in for upkeep from gig money regardless, and the new guy should as well. That money should go into a pot, not be given to the original members to spend on beer.  

 

If everyone owns their own gear, then they're responsible for the upkeep of their own gear. Including if they own the mixer being used. Because the guy who owns the speakers is responsible for upkeep of the speakers and so on. 

 

And if one person wants to own the PA and ask everyone for a donation (or not) that's good as well.

 

I'm not sure where I stand with refusing to pay for gear because you already own your own PA. I'd rather pay someone £20 of my gig money to have them store, carry and set up the PA, because I've been that guy carrying speakers and amps into my garage on my own at 3am. And I'd rather be in bed. 

 

 

Edited July 18, 2023 by TimR

[Woodinblack]

4 minutes ago, TimR said:

And if one person wants to own the PA and ask everyone for a donation that's good as well.

 

I'm not sure where I stand with refusing to pay for gear because you already own your own PA. I'd rather pay someone £20 of my gig money to have them store, carry and set up the PA, because I've been that guy carrying speakers and amps into my garage on my own at 3am. And I'd rather be in bed. 

 

I think pretty well everyone is on board with that idea.

[Dan Dare]

9 minutes ago, TimR said:

I'm not sure where I stand with refusing to pay for gear because you already own your own PA. I'd rather pay someone £20 of my gig money to have them store, carry and set up the PA, because I've been that guy carrying speakers and amps into my garage on my own at 3am. And I'd rather be in bed. 

 

I may be sad, but I still enjoy doing sound. I'm happy to carry my PA (and also to earn a fee for its use). As it's compact and lightweight (class D and neo speakers have reached the PA world, too), it's pretty easy. The heaviest items I own are 2 Fohhn powered subs that weigh a little over 20 kilos each, so hardly a strain for a reasonably fit old geezer like me and I have a trolley. To each his/her own, of course.

[TimR]

And thats why the free market works. 

 

I'll concentrate on playing my bass and pay someone who enjoys doing PA to concentrate on the PA. It's a win win. 

 

Been there, done that, thankless task. 

[Downunderwonder]

5 hours ago, TimR said:

 

Band goes on tour. Eat in expensive restaurants. Stay in big hotels. Own expensive gear. 

 

New guy stays in Motel, plays Squire and eats McDonalds.

 

No issue? 

If I was up for 1M to join a top tier touring band maybe I already made a few quid playing in other projects? As I haven't, that 1M would be going in the bank and I'd still be staying in motels etc. But I would buy some nice shirts to wear on stage.

 

I'd say the 1M was for woodshedding all the back catalogue and making himself available. It doesn't go far once you start spending it like you're a rockstar, so I wonder what his rake for the rest of the work is worth.

[TimR]

12 hours ago, Downunderwonder said:

I'd say the 1M was for woodshedding all the back catalogue and making himself available. It doesn't go far once you start spending it like you're a rockstar, so I wonder what his rake for the rest of the work is worth.

 

Yes. It'll be a retainer. 

 

But the point is they're expecting him to stop all other work. And if you joined a company you'd expect to be paid similarly to people doing the same job. So whatever wage they're paying themselves - less any writing royalties.

 

I don't think anyone would be happy doing their day job knowing the guys around you were being paid 100x or more what you're being paid.

 

 

[Dad3353]

9 minutes ago, TimR said:

... you'd expect to be paid similarly to people doing the same job. So whatever wage they're paying themselves - less any writing royalties.

 

I don't think anyone would be happy doing their day job knowing the guys around you were being paid 100x or more what you're being paid.

 

Once again, this old saw. Once one has enough for oneself, what matter the financial arrangements of others..? A toxic mentality, surely..? 

[Woodinblack]

2 hours ago, TimR said:

I don't think anyone would be happy doing their day job knowing the guys around you were being paid 100x or more what you're being paid.

 

Like the bass player of the rolling stones?

[TimR]

52 minutes ago, Woodinblack said:

 

Like the bass player of the rolling stones?

No. The Stones is different. They have lots of musicians on stage. Many of whom are not 'in the band'. 

[Woodinblack]

13 minutes ago, TimR said:

No. The Stones is different. They have lots of musicians on stage. Many of whom are not 'in the band'. 

 

But he (Daryl Jones) has been the bass player for the rolling stones since 1993, and has worked on every album and tour with them in that time.

[Greg Edwards69]

2 hours ago, Woodinblack said:

 

But he (Daryl Jones) has been the bass player for the rolling stones since 1993, and has worked on every album and tour with them in that time.

Similar to Hugh Macdonald until Bon Jovi made him an official member a few years ago. For years he was an uncredited member of the band. 
 

There was a guitarist in wet wet wet who was an unofficial member for years too. 

Edited July 19, 2023 by Greg Edwards69

[Downunderwonder]

7 hours ago, TimR said:

 

Yes. It'll be a retainer. 

 

But the point is they're expecting him to stop all other work. And if you joined a company you'd expect to be paid similarly to people doing the same job. So whatever wage they're paying themselves - less any writing royalties.

 

I don't think anyone would be happy doing their day job knowing the guys around you were being paid 100x or more what you're being paid.

 

 

That's why I was wondering about RT's end. Metallica Inc makes a helluva lot of profit out of shows and merch.

 

Gig fees and touring allowances is small beer so for him to be living large he would need some kind of percentage on the profits. That was my point. 1M wouldn't last long.

[casapete]

20 hours ago, Woodinblack said:

 

But he (Daryl Jones) has been the bass player for the rolling stones since 1993, and has worked on every album and tour with them in that time.

I’m assuming he took up his role with the band knowing he may never be a full member of The Stones?

Plenty of musicians appear happy with this as an ongoing / working relationship. Most of the other 

musicians who play with The Stones have done so for a long time ( Daryl, Chuck Leavell, Bernard

Fowler etc) and presumably are on retainers to ensure their talents are available whenever needed.
Since Charlie Watts passed away, The Stones are now down to 3 members, although Ronnie Wood

was not officially a full time member in a financial sense until the early 90’s I believe. 

Edited July 20, 2023 by casapete

[Jack]

With regards to the Robert Trujillo stuff, they spent ages with lawyers drawing up an arrangement where he gets a small percentage for a year, then a larger one for a few years, etc etc. Until they met with him and just agreed to spl;it everything 25% immediately, partly as an admission to how badly they had treated Jason Newsted. Even if you're not a Metallica fan, Some Kind of Monster is an awesome documentary and a great look in to the lives of a top-tier band. The scene of bored Hetfield sitting in his daughter's ballet class reading a magasine with all of the other, equally bored, dads is amazing.

[TimR]

Which kind of takes us full circle.

 

No one wants to be taken advantage of, and most people will contribute or help in some way, unless you start making unreasonable demands and have unreasonable expectations. 

 

Good to talk. That way you know what everyone's expectations are, or at least what they tell you they are (often these are different 😆).

[TimR]

On 13/07/2023 at 17:59, Gasman said:

Our guitarist has just got as a deal on a new Bose PA - he has paid for it all, so the rest of us have agreed to reimburse him by paying him 20% each (5 piece outfit)- equal shares.

 

Read this again. The Guitarist has already bought the system.

[Jack]

22 hours ago, Dad3353 said:

 

Once again, this old saw. Once one has enough for oneself, what matter the financial arrangements of others..? A toxic mentality, surely..? 

I know this was a specific comment about a specific thing and you might be right, but as a general rule I disagree.

 

Don't brag down the pub about how rich you are and don't belittle people who chose to spend money differently to you. The people on benefits taking their kids to McDonalds deserve that treat as much as anyone and you shouldn't concern yourself with the finances of others as dad said. But this conversation was about a guy doing a job. Always talk about pay with your colleagues.

 

Before I was in teachingland and benefiting from an open, fixed pay scale system I worked a few 'proper' jobs and I have helped people negotiate higher salaries before. I once joined a company in the middle of a pay band because I had argued that I was worth it when they offered me the job. I was not brazen or show-offish with my colleagues, but when the subject came up after a few months I was happy to tell them what I had said, point out similar arguments they could make, etc etc. One got the same as me and somebody else actually ended up on more than me (which they deserved).

[Gasman]

The zombie thread awakes... inevitably, one of the five original members of my band who contributed an equal £600 to the PA purchase gave notice two months ago. He immediately raised the question of getting his money back. I had previously (see above pages) tried to get the band to agree to a fair formula to cover this situation but herding cats would have been a lot easier, so the upshot was a pub meeting last night of the four originals plus the new guy to sort it out. 

 

Opinions covered the the entire spectrum of options, from ‘he’s gone, he gets nothing’ to ‘buy him out 100%’ . The new guy was embarrassed as nothing had been mentioned about funding the PA when he was recruited nor about buying in. After an hour we got fed up with discussing it and reached a compromise, with the new guy offering to put in £300 and the rest of us subbing up another £75 each to pay the leaver off completely. 

 

It wasn't elegant or even logical and depended on the new guy’s goodwill (and bank balance, I guess), but it was a lesson learned - or was it? We still don’t have a proper template for dealing with this next time, so it’ll require more goodwill and muddling through, usual British style...

[Dad3353]

10 minutes ago, Gasman said:

The zombie thread awakes... inevitably, one of the five original members of my band who contributed an equal £600 to the PA purchase gave notice two months ago. He immediately raised the question of getting his money back. I had previously (see above pages) tried to get the band to agree to a fair formula to cover this situation but herding cats would have been a lot easier, so the upshot was a pub meeting last night of the four originals plus the new guy to sort it out. 

 

Opinions covered the the entire spectrum of options, from ‘he’s gone, he gets nothing’ to ‘buy him out 100%’ . The new guy was embarrassed as nothing had been mentioned about funding the PA when he was recruited nor about buying in. After an hour we got fed up with discussing it and reached a compromise, with the new guy offering to put in £300 and the rest of us subbing up another £75 each to pay the leaver off completely. 

 

It wasn't elegant or even logical and depended on the new guy’s goodwill (and bank balance, I guess), but it was a lesson learned - or was it? We still don’t have a proper template for dealing with this next time, so it’ll require more goodwill and muddling through, usual British style...

 

If the PA has been regularly used over a decent period, it is no longer to be valued at the original buying price of £600 each. The leaving member must surely agree to a reasonable depreciation sum, no..? If not, it could be argued that he pay you all your £600 each, and keeps the PA himself. Nonsense, of course.

Your initial investment should have been 'paid back', little by little, by the gigs you've done, until its (constantly decreasing...) depreciated value is reached, at which point it's basically a 'free' PA that you all own, but has no residual monetary value. These arrangements can easily be made, at any time, by mutual agreement and consent. Do it now with all the current members, in preparation for the next time someone leaves. A bit late, but I hope this helps. 

Edited November 7, 2023 by Dad3353