Jump to content
 

Donald Trump's Bulge

Administrators
  • Content Count

    38799
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    112

Donald Trump's Bulge last won the day on November 17 2019

Donald Trump's Bulge had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

8553 Excellent

2 Followers

About Donald Trump's Bulge

  • Rank
    EPIC

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

6248 profile views

Display Name History

  1. He probably is lying. A good portion of the time the "sick" excuse is just a good excuse. But he could be sick.....or in divorce court. Take your pick.
  2. I saw that for sale....it was tempting, its period signed from 2002 and shows the variation of Mark's signature he did for a little while. Its probably not worth the $179 though, that was my hang up there. Its not a good display piece either. Maybe $80-$100 ish would be my estimate. If it was signed on the cover, I probably could have done $150.
  3. The bold makes no sense at all. They are a company that buys music and in the hopes that they profit off of it. They bought the rights to Tom's music. Why is this so hard to understand?
  4. I guess that's true. But if I decide to play a Blink set and charge people $20 a ticket and somehow I make loads of money; can't Blink 182 sue me? I know cover bands do this stuff but I thought there needed to be an agreement. Yeah, the company is listed on the British Stock exchange under the symbol SONG. Any Joe Blow can go invest in this company and technically own a piece of the pie. There are thousands if not millions of investors. This is in no way a partnership. Its a company that goes out and buys music and then takes in whatever profit they can.
  5. Sounds like you are talking about something that this is not.. They acquired the rights to his songs. How is that a publishing deal? How is that a partnership? He sold his rights to the songs. What once was his has been liquidated. Gone. Like if I own stock in Mcdonalds, and then I sell it. Its goodbye. This isn't like a record deal where its like " we release your music and you pay us a percentage of the sales".
  6. Bad analogy, the HOF topics aren't assets. We don't make money off them. If I got loads of money and the HOF topics are paying me monthly for the rest of my life, no I am not giving them up for a lump sum payout at this age. They are my babies. I'd only give them up if, like Ghent said, I was in financial stress. This is likely a forced liquidation to cover his debts.
  7. LOL, I am pretty sure this happened to me too.I saw them in 2008 and he was sick clearly sick as hell. I was front row and at one point he was shaking people's hands and he shook mine. Day later, sick as hell.
  8. Tombots like to look at Tom is a vacuum. Any one thing that he does isn't necessarily inductive of an issue. But when those things are combined together..... Maybe selling your entire catalog might not necessarily be an issue, but selling your catalog with financials that show his companies are money losers, while dealing with a divorce, while trying to make a living stalking the white house, while disappearing after his disaster interview with Joe Rogan, while freaking out saying he is still in Blink, ...... Tombots can't ever look at the bigger picture, because it would prove that the guy is a fruit loop.
  9. He is liquidating a substantial amount of assets. It's just hard to imagine him doing that unless it was "necessary".
  10. Obviously needed the lump sum pretty bad. He gave up making any future money off Blink songs for the rest of his life. Its really sad. But questions linger. Can Tom still perform the songs? Can the owner use the material without consulting Mark and Travis?
  11. The Beatles at Candlestick Park August 29, 1966. Their very last public show ever. Always love this shot of Lennon handing over his guitar getting offstage. That was it for The Beatles playing live. The end of an era. So hardcore.
  12. I think thats a good attitude to have. I've eaten the cost on low dollar stuff too because it isn't worth the aggravation. Especially when the seller wasn't trying to rip me off. You could still frame it and tell all your friends Blink signed it; they'd totally not think twice that it wasn't.
  13. I don't think the seller had ill intent. But its fake. Problem one, a COA from stargraphs, which, doesn't seem to exist, at least I couldn't find anything. Second problem, signed in Beverly Hills in August 2000, but Blink were overseas most of August. I guess its possible, but thats fishy. Thats before even looking at the signatures. Which aren't good. Sorry you got duped. I don't the seller is a forger, they just had that garbage laying around for a number of years and decided to unload it.
  14. Yep, very atypical on the Travis and Tom, but honestly, the T in Tom looks right. Even though that isn't much to go on. The Mark is dead on accurate, he briefly changed his style to that in 2002. The Beatles were known to do "one member signing" meaning if Mark is around but Tom and Travis aren't, Mark signs for himself and also signs for Tom and Travis, or Mark signs and chris signs for tom and Travis. But there is no history of this taking place in Blink, right Ry bread? That aside, I think its good.
×
×
  • Create New...