Most people who like Classic Rock know the Eagles & know their story, and also know that Don Felder is no longer with the group as of 2001, The problem is that they THINK they know why, but from the docs I’ve read, it appears to be a lot more convoluted and I have a bit more sympathy for Felder’s position now that I know more about it, but I still don’t agree with his reasoning, only the legalities of it all.

Let me first say that I don’t know all the facts, but I don’t think anybody except them & insiders do, and they’re all under a Non-Disclosure Agreement, so they can’t legally say much about it, which is why we’re all left to speculate, but let’s at least use the facts as we think we know them based on court filings & what the parties have said publicly.

Felder wasn’t an original member, and didn’t contribute nearly as much to the group as Henley & Frey, both of which are facts, not opinions. Not saying he didn’t do big things, but not as nearly much as H&F.

I’ve always said that Felder wasn’t a crucial part of the group by 2000 since their recording heyday has passed by & being that he didn’t write much & sang almost nothing. The last 23 years have proved that point as they’re a tremendous draw without Felder just as they were with him. I always believed the group could’ve gone on with just Henley or Frey and a bunch of hired hands, which is essentially what’s happening now, but 2 of those hired hands are Walsh & Schmidt, who’ve been onstage with The Eagles for 47 years now.

Notice I said Walsh & Schmidt were “hired hands”, and I didn’t say they were “in the band for 47 years” because they’re never been “in the band”, just hired hands, and most people don’t understand and/or know that. Walsh & Schmidt got a paycheck for recording & touring, and they got writer & publishing royalties for what they wrote, but that’s it. They had no ownership of the brand or any of the music other than what they wrote, and they got no album sales royalties or profit points for concerts or other royalties, earnings & merchandising fees paid to the band. Once you know that, their position & Felder’s position starts making sense. So what was Felder legally?

When Felder joined, Henley & Frey cut Felder in to the band’s brand enterprise, as former members Bernie Leadon & Randy Meisner were co-owners of the band as well. The 4 original members’ shares went from 25% (4-way split of revenue) to 20% (5-way split), which they all agreed to as they still had the communal spirit. Felder was not a hired gun — he was a full-fledged legal part-owner of the brand. That’s where Henley & Frey screwed up, by not treating it as a business, but as a communal partnership. Felder should have been a hired gun, especially since he didn’t contribute nearly as much as Henley & Frey to the songwriting or lead vocals. Yes, he came up with the chords for Hotel California, but H&F wrote all the lyrics & changed the feel of the song to be more Rock. Felder wrote the chord changes to Victim Of Love, but H&F wrote those lyrics & worked on the arrangement, and Felder created the opening bass hook on One Of These Nights, and he co-wrote The Disco Strangler & Those Shoes, once again with H&F writing the lyrics. That’s about the total sum of anything important that he contributed in the way of songwriting.

Later on, Leadon & then Meisner sold their 20% stakes back to the band & exited the band by their own choices. At that point, Henley, Frey & Felder each owned 33.33% of the band enterprise, and Walsh & Schmidt were simply hired hands with no ownership, which is what you would expect from any band & how it should have been done with Felder. Being a hired hand with the Eagles is better than not being anything at all to them.

Felder is upset because of these points that I’m aware of:

1. H&F put together an agreement in 2000 negotiating a new monetary split for H&F, Felder & the other 2 guys which really benefitted H&F tremendously as they were to receive the lion’s share of profits from a new box set & upcoming tour. That’s only legal if Felder doesn’t agree to it, but he signed off on that deal; however, he says he was coerced & misled into signing that agreement due to lack of information he was entitled to. The box set represents past work which Felder owned 1/3rd of, and as far as future concerts, projects & merch, that would have to be by negotiation — they can’t just take any part of Felder’s 33% without his permission. The reasoning behind Felder agreeing to take less than 33% of future projects would be to work & earn money, which he needed due a pending divorce. Getting than 33% was better than getting zero, as H&F could’ve simply stopping touring & all projects & Felder would have been helpless. That’s probably what the “coercion” claim is related to; I don’t know, but I don’t see that as coercion as H&F had a right to not work if they didn’t want to work. Being that the band was an LLC, they could outvote Felder on whether they worked or not.
2. Being a co-owner, Felder had the right to inspect & audit the books of the band to see where the money was going & coming from, but he claims Henley & Frey refused to let him do that. That was mistake #2 by H&F if true, #1 being cutting Felder in as a co-owner in the first place when it wasn’t necessary.

I agree that H&F should’ve gotten the lion’s share of profits from future endeavors such as tours or new albums as they were solo stars & original members & owned 2/3rd of the band, but since Felder was a 33% owner, he would have to agree to it. H&F produced the 2000 document saying he did, which he says he was coerced & misled into signing because he wasn’t being told all the facts due to not being able to see the books. I agree that Walsh was a solo star, but he didn’t own any part of the band — the guys had wised up when Walsh & Schmidt came aboard & didn’t give them a piece of the brand.

I believe Felder was correct in not having to give up any profits on past material. I also believe he had the legal right to inspect the books upon demand as a co-owner, and I believe H&F had no legal right to kick him out of the brand, but they did have the right to kick him out of the band. They could have voted to replace him on stage, but they would still have to pay him his 33% on revenue from past projects & whatever split he agreed to in the 2000 agreement for all future concerts whether he’s there or not. This has happened before in bands like Lynyrd Skynyrd, Toto, Steely Dan & others where a former member is paid a share simply due to ownership issues & yet has nothing to do with the band anymore; in many cases, it’s a dead member’s estate/family suing for profits. Just because you die, your business partner doesn’t get your share of the business assets unless you specifically agreed to that in writing, and who would?

I don’t agree with Felder’s communal, equal-share split of profits position for future endeavors. I believe that if he went along with the new profit split for future work as he should have, and simply calmed down & waited for the wheels to turn that he maybe would’ve eventually received the financial info he wanted without suing & he’d still be in the band and would’ve made far more than any settlement he got, which was anywhere between $10 mil & $40 mil. He sued for $50 mil.