Jerry's Tiger in Sports Illustrated

Chat about Equipment Info

Re: Jerry's Tiger in Sports Illustrated

Postby waldo041 » Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:45 pm

of course i will not divulge any names or specific's i have of the process as i have no place in doing so, BUT there is testimony from certain people that made dougs case to have the instruments returned to him as jerry wished. and the GDP had no right not to agree and give irwin the istruments, that's why they didn't go to court and released those specific instruments. i am sure it's a little more trickier then that. but is it coincidence that tiger and wolf were not paid for with a GDP check? is it coincidence that a certain persons statements stated that they were indeed paid for with cash? is it coincidence doug got tiger and wolf? all the answers are no and for a reason. then why does an organization that has full rights to it's property, wrong in not following 1 individual of the organizations wishes in death when the whole was not considered? last i checked jerry was part of a band with other members in it. i find your plausible situations laughable in a way because bob and phil still possess almost ALL if not most of their instruments they played onstage for the better part of the careers. minus those stolen and granted most unusable were given away. when was the last time you heard someone say i BOUGHT this guitar off garcia or weir or lesh? NEVER, they didn't sell their guitars, ,if and when they gave them away. but i am sure the rules were followed in those exchanges that were set forth by all members. it's also not a coincidence that the ones given away by jerry were bought by jerry and or given to jerry. alligator is owned by the estate and the travis beans were given to jerry for an endorsement and subsequently given away. they still have pigpen and brent's b3 and many other pieces of gear that belong to the organization. they had a pact and a rule and jerry was in on making those rules. so when jerry dies the right to preserve what they feel was theirs is their right to do so. the rules shouldn't changed in death because they were made for a reason. only as they found out, albeit unfortuately for GDP and doug, was that they were not all jerry's to give back to doug, nor were they all GDP's to keep. the ones that were legally dougs, doug got in the end and the ones that were legally GDP's, GDP got. pretty simple. i will change my stance in that this was a little about money, but from a business standpoint, the GDP did everything to preserve their rules and their organizations property. can't fault them for that, that's business. my take is that doug wanted them all so he could dump them for a quick payment instead of analyzing the true wealth they possessed. and as the case with wolf and tiger, you see why they tried so hard to keep them out of dougs hands. they knew what was going to happen to them and it happened. regardless of what jerry's will stated, the GDP as a business has every right to try and preserve and keep their business and property they own. doug is the one who deserves the ridicule in what he ultimately did with them. he could have chose an alternative and leased them or something other then sending them into a private collection. but he opted to auction them off, even when he is quoted as "going to keep wolf". i do need to reread phil's statement about the "tax strategy" because i feel that that was something even jerry was involved in before his death, and was part of the pact they had to keep everything within the organization and to save on some taxes. what business doesn't do that? if anything they were ahead of their time in their thinking like that. that's just good business. the unfortunate thing i just reread in your post's is your lack of belief of what went down or has been said went down, and see it your own way with hypotheticals. i am sorry, but doug got what he deserved and the GDP got what they deserved regardless of what you or i believe. and GDP should be applauded for not dragging the whole thing to a court room and doing the right thing. all they wanted was to keep their brothers magnificent instruments, and had it not be for key testimony, they would still have them today, because they were part of the grateful dead and their sound which was the business they were in of which jerry was a member of.

peace,
waldo
"Tone is in the instruments. Technique in the hands. Do what you will." ~ quote from some guy at the TGP forum
waldo041
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2830
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 10:58 am
Location: Indiana

Re: Jerry's Tiger in Sports Illustrated

Postby waldo041 » Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:05 pm

strumminsix wrote:Waldo, market yourself, homey. Figure out a way to get Irsay's ear so that he knows once you show up he can just say no to other requests as you will do it fully!


strum i have tried everything for the last few years short of buying season tickets and sitting outside his office! :lol:

peace,
waldo
"Tone is in the instruments. Technique in the hands. Do what you will." ~ quote from some guy at the TGP forum
waldo041
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2830
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 10:58 am
Location: Indiana

Re: Jerry's Tiger in Sports Illustrated

Postby Rusty the Scoob » Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:17 pm

Did GDP ever offer to either settle with Doug out of court or buy the instruments from him outright?
User avatar
Rusty the Scoob
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2316
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:28 am
Location: Concord, MA

Re: Jerry's Tiger in Sports Illustrated

Postby Naataanii » Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:44 pm

how much is she worth now I wonder?
Last edited by Naataanii on Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Hey, hey, come right away. Come and join the party everyday!
Naataanii
Brent
Brent
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 1:46 pm
Location: AZ

Re: Jerry's Tiger in Sports Illustrated

Postby bodiddley » Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:54 pm

I don't see that happening. If he thinks there was nothing done wrong on his part what the hell does he have to be sorry for? I don't like it, but he bought it fair and square. GDP shoulda ponied up when they had the chance.
bodiddley
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1042
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 5:22 am
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Jerry's Tiger in Sports Illustrated

Postby Chuckles » Wed Jan 27, 2010 2:50 am

Maybe Irsay doesn't want it documented because he dropped it or scratched the hell out of the back plat with a big ol' horseshoe Colts belt buckle?
Seems like I've been here before...

The Road's Facebook Page (including links to tunage) is here:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Road/ ... 200?ref=nf
User avatar
Chuckles
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:52 pm
Location: DC

Re: Jerry's Tiger in Sports Illustrated

Postby Mick » Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:44 am

Rusty the Scoob wrote:Did GDP ever offer to either settle with Doug out of court or buy the instruments from him outright?


The end result was an out of court settlement, Doug got Tiger and Wolf, GDP got the rest.
Mama Mama many worlds I've come since I first left home.
Mick
Jerry
Jerry
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:46 am
Location: Northern NJ

Re: Jerry's Tiger in Sports Illustrated

Postby Mick » Wed Jan 27, 2010 7:16 am

waldo041 wrote: the unfortunate thing i just reread in your post's is your lack of belief of what went down or has been said went down, and see it your own way with hypotheticals.


Well, you'd have to show me that. I accept everything I have read as having "gone down", but there is a vast area there of behind the scene stuff that most, if not all, of us will never know anything about.

I just think of it this way, I saw GDP take this hard-line stance and start chasing something with all their might, and one day, reversing course and "settling" the matter, by letting Doug Irwin have the two most valuable guitars, and I have to stop for a minute and say "why"? Any hypothetical stuff I have written is all about the why, nothing else. GDP never said anything about why, so they leave the door wide open for speculation. I do work on stuff like this at my job, and I can tell you that "ownership" is not 100% dependent on "who paid the bill". An example of why is easy to show, say you, me, Thing 1 and Thing 2 form a band and a corporation to hold the band's assets called Waldo's productions (WP) of which we all own an even share. Right out of the gate, we get a gig for $10K, but since my Schecter is a piece of crap and my other guitar is a bottom of the line plywood body cheapo, I say I don't have a stage-worthy guitar. The 4 of us ask for an advance of $2000, get it and use it to buy me a nice new Carvin guitar for me to play the gig with. The check is written from WP. We play the gig, get paid, and decide to distribute the $8K we got after the gig. Do you think the distribution would look like this:

Waldo: $2K
Mick: $2K
Thing 1: $2K
Thing 2: $2K

I don't think so. I think it would look like this:

Waldo: $2,500
Mick: $500
Thing 1: $2,500
Thing 2: $2,500

Given that, who really paid for that Carvin guitar? Who should "own" that guitar? IMO, that guitar would be MINE, and I could give it away as I saw fit, even though it could be shown that WP "paid" for the guitar.

To say this is what happened in the case of GDP would be speculation, and I have no interest in doing that. What I wrote is that even if you accept everything written as fact, as I more or less do, that still leaves the door wide open for WHY certain folks did things the way they did. These are not stupid people here, as much as they are willing to let you think they are when it would appear to be in their best interest. They gave up the fight for a reason, we just don't know what it is. And like I said before, I would want to know a lot more about the "rules" for instruments in the band before I decided for myself whether or not Doug Irwin got screwed. If I were not much more cynical than I am, I could easily punch a bunch of holes in their story as not making any sense, but I believe I've done enough punching for now.

i am sorry, but doug got what he deserved and the GDP got what they deserved regardless of what you or i believe.


Well, they both got what they NEGOTIATED, which is different than what they "deserve". IMO, a powerful, well capitalized corporation chasing an essentially defenseless individual and forcing him to negotiate a settlement as opposed to getting what he was promised sucks.

and GDP should be applauded for not dragging the whole thing to a court room and doing the right thing.


Again, we see this very differently. Like I said, they stopped short of going to court all right, and we will never know for sure why, but there is way more than enough room there to allow that they might have stopped short of going to court for reasons they REALLY didn't want us to know about that I will never "applaud" that act.

all they wanted was to keep their brothers magnificent instruments,


OK, I have been trying to be gentle and kind so far, but to this one, I just say bullshit. If they "wanted to keep their brothers magnificent instruments", all they had to do was pay Doug off. The man was broke and unable to work, you don't think he would have taken a $2 million cash settlement? I do. And then, GDP would have unquestionably and undoubtedly owned all of Jerry's guitars, end of story. They didn't do that because, IMO, they were chasing the bucks. I don't see how any other conclusion can be reasonably made. They didn't pay him off because their goal was to GET money, not PAY money.
Mama Mama many worlds I've come since I first left home.
Mick
Jerry
Jerry
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:46 am
Location: Northern NJ

Re: Jerry's Tiger in Sports Illustrated

Postby strumminsix » Wed Jan 27, 2010 7:39 am

waldo041 wrote:
strumminsix wrote:Waldo, market yourself, homey. Figure out a way to get Irsay's ear so that he knows once you show up he can just say no to other requests as you will do it fully!


strum i have tried everything for the last few years short of buying season tickets and sitting outside his office! :lol:


Well, sorry, dude! That was my best idea! Figure with man like Irsay you need to make the arrangement benefit him in some way.
User avatar
strumminsix
Senior Member
 
Posts: 6671
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Chicago

Re: Jerry's Tiger in Sports Illustrated

Postby brutusbuck45 » Wed Jan 27, 2010 7:40 am

...was just was watching Mike and Mike on ESPN2. They just finished an interview with Irsay. I half expected one of the Mike's to conclude the interview by saying, "...and here we have an email from a listener that wants to talk to you about Jerry Garcia's Tiger guitar." Didn't happen. Oh well.
brutusbuck45
Phil
Phil
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 4:48 am

Re: Jerry's Tiger in Sports Illustrated

Postby waldo041 » Wed Jan 27, 2010 9:18 am

i really wish getting the information was as simple as we may think it could be. the curator, whom i have contact with, at the RnR HOF says there is always a home for tiger there. controlled environment and all that there. he also stated there is not an insurance policy in the world that would cover the damage if it happened to the instrument. sure you get some money, but the instruments actual state would always be damaged.

as to micks WP argument. these guys were paid wages from a company they owned and operated. the company at large, retains more rights then the individuals by themselves as they received a wage for there services and the remamining money went to the company for it's operating costs, of which instrument and gear purchase were obviously a part of. this is not a bar band where you split the wages evenly between the individuals that play in the band. this was a company that received all money for the work and payed the employees for there work within the company. SO, if the GDP paid for the guitar it is not the same as jerry paying for it out of his wages. the 2 are seperate entities. and this is why doug got what jerry COULD will him, even though he willed them all to him, the company paid for certain instruments and the "employees" individual wages paid for certain instruments. the personal payments made by jerry garcia were for wolf and tiger in the form of cash. the others were paid by GDP in the form of a company check. the company did not die when jerry did only there main source of income did, the band. so doug got what he rightfully deserved and the company, GDP, retained what they paid for as they were and still are an operating company. had jerry been loaned the money for wolf and tiger from the company, then the company may have had an argument in keeping them, but he didn't, he paid cash from his personal wages from the company he happened to part owner of but also worked for. granted he was a part owner of the company, but he was not the entire company, they still retain rights as the company. and had every right to keep what they could, and commended in not dragging it into court and doing what was right in settling for the instruments they as a company could not legally show they had paid for. had doug been paid cash by jerry for all his instruments from his personal wages, then doug would have gotten all of them. but again, he didn't and as luck would have it for doug, the instruments he could get just happen to be wolf and tiger. not a money issue because if there were a settlement with none of this legal ownership stuff, he'd would have gotten maybe 1 guitar and that "may" have been out of respect for jerry's will. OR if they were so money hungry, they would never have given him wolf and tiger, but one if not both of the other 2. personally i take no offense in your opinions on the matter, but i am telling you why he got wolf and tiger, and not from an opinion. it comes from someone on the inside that states how and why doug got what he got! i totally understand you don't believe me, but it is the truth and exactly why they quickly and legally gave back ,not settle, after going after them so hard.

as for doug and a "settlement", he wasn't going to take a lower price for them from the GDP as NO ONE knew what the price of them was going to be in the open market. i am sure he would have been offered fair market value for them, but doug "most likely" thought he could get more then there payment in the open market. and he was correct and probably offended he couldn't get all of them, so he as well as they, were all bitter of the mistake jerry made in his will. oh and i have read the will, Doug Erwin was to get the instruments.

peace,
waldo
Last edited by waldo041 on Wed Jan 27, 2010 10:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Tone is in the instruments. Technique in the hands. Do what you will." ~ quote from some guy at the TGP forum
waldo041
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2830
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 10:58 am
Location: Indiana

Re: Jerry's Tiger in Sports Illustrated

Postby Rusty the Scoob » Wed Jan 27, 2010 9:59 am

I don't believe that it was a coincidence that Wolf and Tiger were the ones Doug got - they were the first purchased, and likely purchased before GDP was fully evolved as a corporation. Jerry probably either just went to the bookkeeper at the time and said "I need 5 grand for a guitar", or just paid him out of pocket, whichever was more convenient at the time.
User avatar
Rusty the Scoob
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2316
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:28 am
Location: Concord, MA

Re: Jerry's Tiger in Sports Illustrated

Postby waldo041 » Wed Jan 27, 2010 10:04 am

scoob your right, it was "out of pocket" in the form of cash from mountain girl to doug irwin!

there i said part of it!

~mike
"Tone is in the instruments. Technique in the hands. Do what you will." ~ quote from some guy at the TGP forum
waldo041
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2830
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 10:58 am
Location: Indiana

Re: Jerry's Tiger in Sports Illustrated

Postby Mick » Wed Jan 27, 2010 10:37 am

waldo041 wrote:as to micks WP argument. these guys were paid wages from a company they owned and operated...... this is not a bar band where you split the wages evenly between the individuals that play in the band. this was a company that received all money for the work and payed the individuals for there work within the company.


OK, now you are either playing stupid, or treating me like I am stupid, so I think we are getting to, or already at, the end of this discussion. What I posted was an EXAMPLE for illustrative purposes. I have a pretty good knowledge of corporations and how they work, and based on that knowledge, what we are being asked to believe, namely that GDP bought instruments for the band members and the band members had absolutely no accountability for what was spent, how often instruments were being replaced etc., just doesn't hold water. What if Jerry went out and bought 10 new guitars each year at a price of $50,000 each, would that have just been OK and GDP would pay for and own all of those guitars? I think not. There had to be some control over who spent what. As you said yourself, there had to be "rules" about the purchase of instruments with GDP funds. Before we can have ANY intelligent view over who owned the guitars that were proven paid for by GDP, we would have to know what the rules were. Again, the EXAMPLE I posted was an EXAMPLE where the band paid for the guitar, but the costs were later taken out of my band wages to keep everything fair. IF that was the rule in place with the GD in the day, then Jerry DID own the guitars and they were his to give away. I have no idea what the rules in place were, nor do I care to speculate. All I'm saying is that the message that we have gotten is incomplete, and in some ways, non-sensical.


SO, if the GDP paid for the guitar it is not the same as jerry paying for it out of his wages.


Like I said, that's why we would need to know what the rules were about buying guitars with company funds. And as shown before, GDP can pay for a guitar today, and be reimbursed by Jerry in a variety of different manners down the road. These things are COMMONLY done in business to move expenses to the area of the highest tax exposure, but I have NEVER seen this done in a "free lunch" manner unless the corporation had a single owner. This could descend into a discussion of corporate taxation, but since my example above apparently failed to shed any light on the possibilities here, I doubt a discussion of basic business tax strategies will.

the 2 are seperate entities. and this is why doug got what jerry COULD will him, even though he willed them all to him, the company paid for certain instruments and the "employees" individual wages paid for certain instruments. the personal payments made by jerry garcia were for wolf and tiger in the form of cash. the others were paid by GDP in the form of a company check. the company did not die when jerry did only there main source of income did, the band.


This is where you seem to think I don't accept what happened, and you are wrong. To say it once again, just because the guitars were bought with a company check doesn't necessarily make them property of the company. You have apparently made an ASSUMPTION that the guitars bought with a company check were property of the company, and based this on a supposition that isn't very likely in reality, namely that band members got to indiscriminantly, and without recourse, buy instruments with company funds. If that is how you chose to view the situation, have at it, but I never will.

not a money issue because if there were a settlement with none of this legal ownership stuff, he'd would have gotten maybe 1 guitar and that "may" have been out of respect for jerry's will. OR if they were so money hungry, they would never have given him wolf and tiger, but one if not both of the other 2.


This is speculation at best. It was GDP that brought the ownership issue to the table, not Doug Irwin. If they really could prove that they owned all of the guitars, they would have them all, on that we both agree. Where we apparently completely disagree is for the other two guitars, you seem to think they have proven ownership, and I think that although maybe they could, what I have seen in the publicly available information falls well short of establishing such.

personally i take no offense in your opinions on the matter, but i am telling you why he got wolf and tiger, and not from an opinion. it comes from someone on the inside that states how and why doug got what he got! i totally understand you don't believe me, but it is the truth and exactly why they quickly settled after going after them so hard.


Again, it's not that I don't believe what you are saying, it's that there is much ground left to cover before we can say that Doug got what he "deserves". If GDP REALLY proved they owned the two guitars they kept, then IMO Doug did get what he was supposed to get. But right on the eve of when they were going to have to prove that in a court of law, suddenly we have a settlement. My only question is, "Why?" It's not a matter of disbelieving anyone, as I have already said I more or less accept everything released to the the public as "fact", it's that to have any real opinion on what happened, we would need a lot more information.

as for doug and a "settlement", he wasn't going to take a lower price for them from the GDP as NO ONE knew what the price of them was going to be in the open market. i am sure he would have been offered fair market value for them, but doug "most likely" thought he could get more then there payment in the open market. and he was correct and probably offended he couldn't get all of them, so he as well as they, were all bitter of the mistake jerry made in his will.


This is, again, speculation at best. If I was in his shoes, and I got a choice between a guaranteed payday of $2 million today or taking the risk on an auction, i would have taken the two mil in a heartbeat. Your view that Jerry made a mistake in his will is also an assumption based on the same supposition that is unlikely to exist in reality.

oh and i have read the will, Doug Erwin was to get the instruments.


Yes, I am aware that Doug's name was misspelled in the will. But the document was written in such a way that there was no reasonable doubt as to whom Jerry was referring.
Mama Mama many worlds I've come since I first left home.
Mick
Jerry
Jerry
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:46 am
Location: Northern NJ

Re: Jerry's Tiger in Sports Illustrated

Postby waldo041 » Wed Jan 27, 2010 11:48 am

i am not playing stupid mick, and am in no way calling you stupid, and am not trying to take offense to your "i know better"attitude. but i seriously believe you feel doug was treated unfairly and refuse to hear what really went down, and choose hypotheticals or your corporate knowledge as a tool to change my thought process or the facts. here's a little snippet from some old articles you can find on the net.

In his will, the singer pledged the guitars to Mr Irwin, who had made them between 1981 and 1989.

But Grateful Dead Productions contested the will, saying it was the company who owned them, and they were never Mr Garcia's to give away.

The parties were close to an agreement in November, but Mr Irwin pulled out at the last minute over a clause which would give the band first refusal before he sold any of the guitars.

Mr Irwin's lawyers said that could scare off any potential bidders.


Mr Irwin's attorney Douglas Long said the question of the guitars' value has been one of the big stumbling blocks to reaching a deal.

He said: "There is only one way to figure out what something is worth, and that is at public auction. You've got to give the world a chance to buy it."


i believe it was doug after the cash the whole time. and GDP was trying to protect the instruments. GDP would have never sold them at an auction because they felt they were part of them. and they would be displayed as the other are to this day!


The former band members say Grateful Dead Productions Inc. began as a partnership made up solely of the band members and always bought and maintained instruments as a group to avoid arguments.

"We all owned it all. All for one and one for all" said a "letter to Deadheads" posted on the Internet and signed by ex-band members Bob Weir Mickey Hart and Bill Kreutzmann. "Doug Irwin's motives and those of his lawyers appear pretty clear. They want the money the guitars will bring at auction."


they knew what was going to happen to them, and while they didn't say, i am sure this means they "tried" to compensate doug for them!

peace,
waldo
"Tone is in the instruments. Technique in the hands. Do what you will." ~ quote from some guy at the TGP forum
waldo041
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2830
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 10:58 am
Location: Indiana

PreviousNext

Return to Grateful Dead Equipment Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests