HitsDailyDouble is quoting sources that say that EMI chief Guy Hands is seriously considering legal action against the head of Robbie Williams' management firm ie:music, Tim Clark, over that previously reported interview he gave to the Times about the change of ownership at the major music firm.
The sources seemingly say that Hands took offence at the interview, which was published just ahead of his meetings with staff and artist reps last week where he outlined, for the first time, his vision for transforming the music major his private equity business Terra Firma acquired last year.
HDD quote the source thus: "A letter went to Tim Clark from outside lawyers repping EMI, referring to statements made by Clark in the UK press that were absolutely false, leading to seriously negative and inaccurate press comments about Robbie Williams, EMI and Guy Hands. The letter asks Clark to correct those statements".
Among the offending statements are the line that Hands was acting like a "plantation owner" who had stumbled into the record industry via a "vanity purchase", even though Clark has since clarified in a subsequent interview that he had, in fact, accused record label chiefs in general of acting like "plantation owners", and had not aimed that comment at Hands at all who, the ie chief said, had so far provided little indication of his real plans for EMI - so couldn't yet be labelled that way.
It was the Times interview that led to wide media reporting that Robbie was on strike because of Hands' plans for EMI. Clark also subsequently denied he had ever made that comment too, although admitted he would be cautious to allow EMI to release a new Williams long player in the short term because "We [currently] have no idea how EMI will market and promote the album".
Whether there is any truth in these rumours remains to be seen. Clark, of course, is not the only artist manager to go on the record expressing concern regarding the future of EMI, though most in the management community have seemed most concerned about being kept in the dark about Hands' plans rather than actually criticising what the private equity chief plans to do at the major.
Growing tensions between EMI and ie might explain why the major has been slow to come to the defence of Robbie amid much false reporting regarding the state of Williams' recording career.
Some media have strongly implied much of EMI's woes have been caused by Robbie's much reported £80 million deal with the major back in 2002, citing the "disappointing" performance of his last album 'Rudebox', unsold copies of which are being flogged in pound shops or trashed and turned into paving materials in China.
But, while it's true 'Rudebox' did not perform as well as Robbie's previous releases, most notably in the UK, in the wider scheme of things the album was still a big seller on a global level - and with good reviews from some British media not normally known for Robbie fandom, plus the involvement of the recently buzzy Mark Ronson on the project, could probably have been a bigger seller here also with some better marketing from EMI.
Meanwhile, the £80 million deal was groundbreaking not because of its size but because it was one of the first 360 degree deals to be done in the record industry, giving EMI a cut of Robbie's lucrative touring and publishing earnings - ie exactly the kind of deals Hands says he is keen to cut with all of his artists. While Hands may not approve of the size of the advance paid in that deal, our sources say it has more than paid off for EMI, and could provide the text book template artist contract for Hands' new look EMI.
All of which is something you might expect EMI to come out and say amid all the reporting that Robbie's career is over - surely with two albums still to deliver on that £80 million contract it's not in EMI's interests to have one of their most bankable stars so publicly dissed? Unless Hands isn't personally feeling all that charitable to ie:music, and is happier for the public to think every single deal EMI has ever made in the past was a disaster, perhaps providing stronger justification for the radical changes about to kick off.