Paul Cairns (Mad Mac) played on The Soundhouse Tapes

[Luisma]

Thanks for the info. I just found it interesting, because what you said about the settlement being nowhere near the original claim reminds me of the Beckett lawsuit: "Iron Maiden’s management failed to produce any accurate earnings figures until both parties had already spent well over half a million pounds on legal costs. Once the lower than expected figures had been examined, both parties agreed to settle the claim. The defendants (Steve Harris and Dave Murray) have paid all of the Plaintiff’s considerable legal costs as well as their own legal costs and six figure damages." (Source)

As far as I understand Dennis Willcock already withdrew from the public just after the lawsuit was announced. Kind of makes you wonder why McKay, with the experience from the previous lawsuit, didn't advise Willcock to just seek a quiet, out-of-court settlement. If you think about it, the whole row made about the lawsuit back then hurt his career from the start. Maybe Willcock should sue McKay...

I understand... Wilcock didn't receive some money but as I said, no where near what crazy McKay wanted...

I will go and talk a bit more about the lawsuit and what happened... McKay contacted some fans with knowledge and recordings of early gigs and wanted those fans to produce the material and basically testify against Maiden... He basically went into the battle without having the arms to support the claims he made and ended up, as you very well said, damaging Wilcock who could have a bit more of a musical career...

IMO Wilcock was manipulated not only by McKay but also by some of his "fans/friend" and once again his ego (the reason why he ended up leaving Maiden) blindsided him... A really sad tale.

As a fellow lawyer, I think that McKay should have been disbared because of the way he handled the case and hurting his own client... As for Dennis, after everything that happened, he just wants to live the rest of his life in peace

 

[Perun]

I will go and talk a bit more about the lawsuit and what happened... McKay contacted some fans with knowledge and recordings of early gigs and wanted those fans to produce the material and basically testify against Maiden... He basically went into the battle without having the arms to support the claims he made and ended up, as you very well said, damaging Wilcock who could have a bit more of a musical career...

Thanks again for the info! I have a few more questions, just because I'm trying to understand what happened. If you can't answer, I understand, but maybe you can just give me an impression.

1. How did McKay know who to contact, and why was he so sure these people would provide the evidence that he started the whole thing without having anything yet?
2. Was there ever any actual proof that Willcock wrote any of those lyrics? (I'll be content with a yes/no answer) From what I can see, the only available evidence proves that the songs existed when Willcock sang them (which is obvious) and at most that they were written during his stint in the band. IIRC, the Maiden camp stated that Willcock at most changed a few words here and there.
3. Why did Maiden77 and the Legacy Project fold just days after the lawsuit was announced?

 

[Luisma]

Thanks again for the info! I have a few more questions, just because I'm trying to understand what happened. If you can't answer, I understand, but maybe you can just give me an impression.

1. How did McKay know who to contact, and why was he so sure these people would provide the evidence that he started the whole thing without having anything yet?
2. Was there ever any actual proof that Willcock wrote any of those lyrics? (I'll be content with a yes/no answer) From what I can see, the only available evidence proves that the songs existed when Willcock sang them (which is obvious) and at most that they were written during his stint in the band. IIRC, the Maiden camp stated that Willcock at most changed a few words here and there.
3. Why did Maiden77 and the Legacy Project fold just days after the lawsuit was announced?

Pleasure man.

1. People know people and in Maiden circles, especially who have more information than the common fan, more... McKay, as I sure you can figure out just by reading his rants in the web, was full of himself that he just couldn't imagine that Maiden fans would not go and harm the band they love... Guess how that turned out?

2. No. I won’t speak about the case itself, but I will elaborate from my perspective as a lawyer—specifically one with a specialty in evidentiary proof. When attempting to establish a particular fact with only partial information, it becomes essential to construct a detailed and coherent narrative. The goal is not merely to present data, but to organise and articulate it in such a way that the conclusion appears both credible and compelling to others. As you say, there is proof that certain songs were created when Wilcock was in the band but that's it... McKay didn't make the effort to produce anything sustantial and as I said, when he contacted the people who could at least provide a bit more "evidence" (the early bootlegs don't prove that Wilcock wrote songs) -something he should have done BEFORE the lawsuit- he got several no's...

3. When the band members related to those projects went and distanced themselves from anything related to Wilcock or that could be associated with him or the early days, there was just nothing to fuel the projects.... Besides, and I do know at least a couple of persons who were behind the project, the thing wasn't very well handled.. and even in this forum is proof about that...

 

[Perun]

Thanks mate, I really appreciate this. I guess it just blows my mind how incompetent someone like McKay is, especially when he was supposed to have experience in what he does (according to Keith Fisher, anyway).

Besides, and I do know at least a couple of persons who were behind the project, the thing wasn't very well handled.. and even in this forum is proof about that...

Yeah, so I noticed. The entrance they made here wasn't really the best in terms of first impressions, and in hindsight it's a real shame. I hope one day there can be some sort of revival even without Willcock, who from all I have gathered isn't exactly easy to handle (as you also said). I'd be welcoming and also apologise to anyone who may have been annoyed by my not-so-friendly responses.

In the same vein, I find this post about Willcock quite intriguing: "A lot of effort went into finding him and also supporting him on his return. But unfortunately, from my point of view, it seems to have been a waste of time." Since the post is from well over a year before McKay announced the lawsuit, it seems things have been going south already.

 

[Perun]

I won’t speak about the case itself, but I will elaborate from my perspective as a lawyer—specifically one with a specialty in evidentiary proof.

I also understand this. I'm not a lawyer, but I am a professional historian, so I tend to get very frustrated when there's a blank spot in the source record.

 

[Luisma]

Thanks mate, I really appreciate this. I guess it just blows my mind how incompetent someone like McKay is, especially when he was supposed to have experience in what he does (according to Keith Fisher, anyway).



Yeah, so I noticed. The entrance they made here wasn't really the best in terms of first impressions, and in hindsight it's a real shame. I hope one day there can be some sort of revival even without Willcock, who from all I have gathered isn't exactly easy to handle (as you also said). I'd be welcoming and also apologise to anyone who may have been annoyed by my not-so-friendly responses.

In the same vein, I find this post about Willcock quite intriguing: "A lot of effort went into finding him and also supporting him on his return. But unfortunately, from my point of view, it seems to have been a waste of time." Since the post is from well over a year before McKay announced the lawsuit, it seems things have been going south already.

It’s a real shame, really, because I know he definitely had good intentions and is quite knowledgeable. But his passion—and perhaps his tendency to believe just a bit too much in one side of the story—made him come across as a bit too pushy. Also, not knowing how to present or talk about certain things. Lastly, and I speak here as someone who has been on the other side of certain comments... Some people make DEMANDS instead of asking and end up attacking people who really do want to share stuff but also protect certain information that has taken them literally YEARS to obtain.

As for Wilcock I can definitely say that he isn't the bad person many people think he is... Did he have a problem with his ego being to big? YES, is he a liar... Not as much as many people believe...

As for the comment... Oh yes, it took quite an effort to get things rolling to sort of reform V1... And almost right for the start some "friends" of Dennis, wanting to get good and free stuff, started to make things difficult... As a matter of fact, I blame them as much as McKay for basically screwing what could have been a record and gigs of V1 as we now have from Gypysy's Kiss

 

[Luisma]

I also understand this. I'm not a lawyer, but I am a professional historian, so I tend to get very frustrated when there's a blank spot in the source record.

Ah mate, then you definitely understand the length some people go to to prove something... Of course I won't go and talk about it again, but you can imagine then how much time and evidence went behind the research to support my own work on Maiden