Talk:Peter Holmes à Court

Pronunciation

Could someone who knows please add the pronunciation of this person's name? In particular, is the final "t" pronounced? --macrakis (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Request quotations

Please quote the relevant sections from the sources in the case of refs 3, 4, 5, 7 (of this version of the article). Stifle (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Stifle. I have found the quotations you requested and they are listed here:

For ref 3 the passage you questioned was: 'In 1994 Holmes à Court put together an off-Broadway rock musical, Fallen Angel. The show lasted only 3 weeks and lost most of Holmes à Court's available capital as well as the capital put in by investors.'

From the reference - "Newly married, Peter Holmes a Court was impatient for success and not interested in working in a hands-on way to learn the theatre business, as someone like Cameron Mackintosh had done. Peter had some tough lessons early. Billy Boesky's rock and roll musical, Fallen Angel, was Peter's first off-Broadway show, which he put together in 1994. It stayed open three weeks and lost most of Peter's available capital and that of some investor's close to home who weren't happy with the result".

As you can see with that one the actual author's language was used but the tone of the passage in Peter's own mother's official biography is far worse that what was reproduced in the version produced here.

For ref 4 the passage you questioned was: 'Janet's biographer, Patricia Edgar, details the incident in another book, Bloodbath: a memoir of Australian television, stating that Back Row Productions was also in financial trouble. Edgar describes how Janet initially reacted to the situation by attempting to force Peter to meet his obligations, but later wanted to assume the Back Row Productions' debt and pay out of her own pocket to save her son from ignominy.'

From the reference - ""At the same time as Janet's problems with Heytesbury were growing, Peter Holmes a Court was in trouble with his company Back Row Productions. As executive producer and distributor of 'Lift-Off Live', Peter had planned a schedule for a tour which had opened successfully in Sydney. Now his company wanted to close the show down but contractually he was committed and we had a tour booked...

A distributor/executive producer is expected to get behind a show and help work for its success, not run when profits aren't such easy takings, but Back Row Productions had serious financial difficulties itself...

As Heytesbury was an investor in 'Lift-Off' with an interest in income from ancillary rights, Janet was entitled to all information and I briefed her regularly. Her first response was that I should pursue Peter firmly to meet his obligations. I phoned Peter, with Janet sitting listening to the phone call, to tell him we intended to continue with the contractually agreed performance schedule...

Janet suggested that she assume Back Row's debt with the Foundation and pay out of her own pocket. She knew Peter was in financial difficulties and this was a way to avert further damage..."

For ref 5 the passage you questioned was: 'In 2000 Holmes à Court settled out of court with his family to gain his inheritance from the family company, Heytesbury. The family was forced to sell off much of its asset base to make the payout. Holmes à Court's father, Robert Holmes à Court, died intestate leaving his wife Janet one third of the family fortune with the four children getting the other two thirds. The amount Peter Holmes à Court received was reported as A$35 million.'

The original reference - AAP Ben Ready (2009-08-26). "New York to Outback - Peter Holmes a Court comes of age" - does not appear to be available online in any form any more. I will endeavour to find a printed copy of this. But in another reference http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/the-pride-and-the-passion/story-e6frezb9-1111114706333 . Holmes a Court admits as much to having 'inherited' AUS$35 million. In this reference in a one-on-one interview the question of the $35 million is put to him and he does not deny it - http://www.abc.net.au/insidebusiness/content/2003/s825742.htm

For ref 7 the passage you questioned was: 'In 2004 Holmes à Court was deposed from the post of CEO of the AACo. Some senior management and board members of AACo held Holmes à Court responsible for some of AACo's poor decisions and the failure to buy AMP's Stanbroke Pastoral Co'

For this reference there is an article abstract available from The Bulletin, one of the oldest and most respected publications in Australia, which states: "Peter Holmes a Court, the chief executive officer of the Australian Agricultural Co. (AACo), has been deposed from the post. Some senior management and board members of AACo have held Holmes a Court responsible for some of AACo's poor decisions and the failure to buy AMP's Stanbroke Pastoral Co." author: Hoy, Anthony Publisher: A C P Computer Publications Publication Name: The Bulletin with Newsweek Subject: News, opinion and commentary ISSN: 1440-7485 Read more: http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/News-opinion-and-commentary/Body-of-evidence-Gunfight-at-the-AACo-corral.html

Ref 8 http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/16/1073878030980.html also shows that Holmes a Court's 'resignation' might have been prompted - "The public reasons given for the change - Holmes a Court stepped aside because he did not want to uproot his young family - have been largely accepted by the sharemarket and the media. But some have questioned the spin. Senior AACo sources have told the Herald that investors and sections of the board lost faith in Holmes a Court's ambitious plans to turn AACo into a global "paddock to plate" food company that owned pie shops as well as cattle stations. There are also suggestions Holmes a Court's high profile, outspokenness and the failure to acquire AMP's Stanbroke Pastoral group last year worked against him." The article also refers to Peter's 'inheritance' but suggests a rough $30 million figure rather than the $35 million found elsewhere.

I have also located one of the references listed as a 'dead link' which appears to have been caused by the Sydney Morning Herald reorganising its archiving. The dead link at reference 9 (in the version you quoted) was http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-leaguenews/news/richardson-quits-as-souths-ceo/2007/10/31/1193618941602.html . The original story is now available at http://www.smh.com.au/news/news/richardson-quits-as-souths-ceo/2007/10/31/1193618941602.html

I would point out that many of the changes made to this material (i.e. deleting it wholesale) were done by sockpuppetry and the complaint of WP:undue was also made by one of these sockpuppets.Edasent (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I accept that some of the material is not flattering, but that does not make it any the less factual.

Vandal Watch

Please note that this page attracts vandals and pamphleteers. Verified content is often removed and replaced with fanciful and unverifiable nonsense. Edasent (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

However, the sections "Firepower Fiasco" and "Crisis of credibility" violate WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, and should not be restored. Stifle (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The sections you refer to are fully referenced from verifiable material. Your deletion of this material is VANDALISM. Edasent (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No it's not. Being referenced is necessary but not sufficient for content to be on this site. It must also meet all the other policies. Explain how it meets WP:UNDUE. Stifle (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Valid Links

Some editors have been erroneously attaching 'dead link' to valid links referenced on this page. The links were found to be still valid and 'alive'. Greg Barry (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)