Frey-less Eagles??? Was it ever considered?

[BillBailey1976]

I'm not sure this is true. I think there would have been legal complications if they had continued without Glenn against his wishes.

In the HOTE doc, Glenn makes a big deal out of the "Felder signs by midnight, or he's out of the band" confrontation. Since Felder, Henley and Frey were each 1/3 partners in Eagles LTD. Could any 2 of them not made that decision?

[BillBailey1976]

From a purely musical viewpoint, I'd have been interested to see what a Frey-less Eagles would have come up with.

After all, Joe and Tim both played on Don Henley's first solo record, with Joe playing the great first guitar solo on Dirty Laundry, and if I remember correctly both Henley and Tim sing on Don Felder's soundtrack song Heavy Metal (Takin' a Ride). I suspect Don would have been the band's dominant songwriter and would have covered similar lyrical subjects to his solo career but with more guitars, although given that it would have been in the 1980s I think they'd have made significant use of synthesisers. Joe and Tim would probably have been given one song per album, maybe Felder too with Glenn no longer being in the band. Clearly this is purely speculation but if the band had continued after Glenn left, would it have been that much of a stretch to imagine them hiring a full time keyboard player? They would have had Walsh and Felder to play guitar and having Joe playing synthesisers most of the time would have been a waste.

Of course, that was never going to happen, I can totally understand why Don didn't want to continue the band without Glenn (although I cannot agree with Henley's comments that the Eagles would have been him and his backing band - Walsh and Felder were both absolutely crucial on The Long Run, the hardest rocking album they've ever done, and I think the leftovers on the Selected Works set showed they had plenty of good guitar parts left unused).

You hit my original thought right on the head here. That's what was running through my mind when I was thinking about this. It would have been different, but just how different is the question.
I too think that there was never a chance this would happen, but I do love what if questions.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

What if questions are something I spend a lot of time on while driving!

When we tear apart comments like Henley's "me and my backing band", you need to keep in mind the context. We can sit here in 2014 and look back and say that Timothy and Joe are vital to the band and a lot more than 'backing band'. However, pre-HFO, Timothy had had one album and one tour with the band, and most of his history was Poco and not the Eagles. Joe had two albums and two tours with the band, but he was known for his guitar playing capability and not his vocals. From what I've read and heard from others, the band also didn't turn him loose during concerts like they do now. At any rate, I believe Henley was stating the take the media and DJs would have about a Frey-less Eagles, and he was right. I don't think he was stating how he'd have perceived it.

[Brooke]

The Eagles without Glenn? I can't even comprehend the thought!

Well, I guess I can but I just wouldn't want to. And as VA posted, if it had been thought about Felder would have certainly run with it.

[sodascouts]

In the HOTE doc, Glenn makes a big deal out of the "Felder signs by midnight, or he's out of the band" confrontation. Since Felder, Henley and Frey were each 1/3 partners in Eagles LTD. Could any 2 of them not made that decision?

Since Felder wasn't a founding member, getting rid of him would have no effect on the band's ability to continue touring as the Eagles, "wrongful termination" suit aside. That is not the case with Glenn and Don Henley, who originated all of this. Remember that with Glenn and Don Henley, there would be issues with who owns the name "Eagles" and stuff like that. There's been similar messes with other bands and they have inevitably involved lawsuits. Henley/Walsh/Schmit/Felder could have toured under another name without any legal issues, but that wouldn't have been nearly as marketable.

It would have been very ugly. No wonder Don Henley didn't want to engage in such a horrible mess. Regardless of who "won", it would have been a Pyrrhic victory.

[UndertheWire]

From what I remember, Felder does mention consideration of carrying on without Glenn in his book. In 1980, he says that someone suggested continuing but noone wanted to do that without Glenn. He also says that in 1990 they considered a Frey-less Eagles and that lead to Henley's comment about Don Henley and his backing band. Felder also says that they received threats of legal action from Frey.

It would have been messy. It sounds like Frey never actually left the band in legal terms.

There's a useful explanation of "the brand", bands breaking up and solo careers from former Eagles manager, John Hartmann. He explicitly mentions Henley and Frey.

http://theholodigm.blogspot.co.uk/20...d-july-20.html

Henley used to describe Frey as the "glue" that held the band together and from what I've read, Frey has always done a lot of the behind-the-scenes work. So even if he was replaced musically, there would be a big hole.

[BillBailey1976]

I guess ownership is the real question. Was "The Eagles" name owned and licensed by Eagles LTD. or by DH or GF or both? I think that would answer the ultimate question of going on without Glenn. If Eagles LTD. owned the name then any 2 of the 3 members of the Eagles LTD. board could make that decision.

I have no understanding of corporate law or partnerships or anything legal on that front.

It sounds as though there was some original deal with the first four.
then Eagles LTD. was established to handle the money at a later date.
Then it was a 5 person equal partnership in Eagles LTD. (Did ALL band money and activities originate and function as part of Eagles LTD.?)
Bernie leaves - sells/forfeits his shares. (Did the shares evenly spread out among the 4?)
Randy leaves - sells/forfeits his shares (Did the shares evenly spread out among the 3? It sounds as though it did, by accounts coming from all parties involved)

So essentially in 1980 when the band stopped, you had 3 partners and 2 hired players. Did they split it all evenly with the 5, or were the 3 splitting everything 3 ways and paying expenses evenly out of their money...expenses being Joe and Tim's salaries plus crew, planes, etc...?

Fast forward to 1994. What happened to Eagles LTD? Why would the split have not been the same? How could Glenn demand more? Was Eagles LTD dissolved and a new corp. organized with a 2/7, 2/7, 1/7. 1/7, 1/7 deal?
Were Tim and Joe part owners of the new corp?

Then a new deal in 2000? NEA? New Eagles Agreement? I don't understand how there could have been, or needed to be a new deal.

I tried to follow it all and piece it together using the HOTE doc and Felder's book, but I just can't follow it all.

I would really like to understand all of this?

I think someday, this group's business practices will make up a full semester class at a business school

[Houston Baby]

Interesting! Thanks for posting the link UTW!

[BillBailey1976]

BTW, I hope no one takes my comments or discussion as in any way saying that I don't love the band just the way it is...(with the exception of Don Felder being gone).
I am thrilled they are together and am so glad that I got to see them one more time.

i just like discussion and love to talk about the Eagles.

It's funny. At work whenever music is discussed I usually end up saying something like "Well the Eagles......" for nearly every answer..hahaha. They are the only group that I have all their albums (and all of DH and GF solo stuff) and really the only group that I have ever followed much.

[UndertheWire]

Bill, your description of the shareholdings from 1974-1980 seems correct. Even though Joe and Tim weren't shareholders they probably had a deal that gave them an equal share of the profits from the tours and records that they participated in. What Joe and Tim didn't get was ownership of the brand or a formal place in the decision-making.

In 1994, a new corporation was set up to handle the HFO tour, album etc and that's where the 2/7, 1/7 shares come in.

The original Eagles Ltd corporation continued to exist in parallel but I assume it was mostly concerned with handling royalties from recordings from 1972-1980. Although Randy and Bernie had surrendered their shares, they were still entitled to royalties for the tracks they played on.

Just as Glenn and Don Henley were able to outvote Don Felder, I believe the two Dons could have outvoted Glenn. However, it seems the Glenn made it clear he would challenge that and noone wanted that fight.