3. "i'm actually surprised" In response to Reply # 0
but not at the same time. i was saying to my brother the other day they might be trying to build a more in-depth story behind him, let him suffer a lil bit, get that underdog status up so that when he DOES come back out its more impactful financially for them. i mean dude dropped an EP and NOBODY knows about it. i only know about it bc i went searching to see if he has any other music and was shocked to find out it dropped in november. they gonna bail him out one day, watch. (lol)
4. "he *only* needs $200k, correct?" In response to Reply # 0
did he run through his advance that fast? and if the label has made their money back it seems like 200k wouldn't be a big deal when the opportunity to make even more money (off this arrest even) is out there
5. "exactly which is why i came up with that conspiracy theory above" In response to Reply # 4
lol like that's lunch money for epic/sony why not bail him out? i was at a fashion show that i performed at the other day and the dj played computers & shmoney dance all them NYU college kids knew the words they need to free rowdy rebel too. lol
7. "i think he only expects it because they actually said they would tho." In response to Reply # 6
and then they changed their tune which again is why i came up with that theory like why even pump fake on that? lol if you not then just don't i feel like its all an elaborate scheme to build a story around him
10. "it's all about PR and them protecting their brand..." In response to Reply # 0
they can afford to bail him out but they risk appearing like they've condoned his actions and aligning themselves with his crime by doing so. right now they can say "oh we signed him because of his music but we don't condone any of those things...etc.". if they bail him out they lose that argument and have to go on a campaign of "innocent until proven guilty" and all that which they probably don't feel is worth the trouble.
the other thing is, if they bail him out at 200k using whatever other assets as collateral and he for whatever reason fucks up again or skips bail then they really lose.
so they're just sitting tight and letting it all play out. if he gets off they still have him under contract and can still make money off him. if he gets locked up they can either cut their losses or release his album and make some change off it despite him being locked up.
they're just playing it safe like a big corporation is expected to. they don't give a fuck about him and he's not valueable enough to risk anything over. they'll just find another one of him.
17. "no it's not. they wouldn't have signed a rapper that raps" In response to Reply # 10
about the streets if they were concerned about that. it's not like he's singing uplifting music. they're just cheap. his music will sell online anyway and bring them money. but most of the money now is made touring and performing and he can't if he's required to stay in the state. so, may as well leave his ass in jail.
23. "They're fine having him rap about it all day" In response to Reply # 17 Tue Feb-24-15 09:01 AM by gumz
but him catching a case while under their employment is another story. They will just let dude ride out the justice system and if he gets off they'll be right back to exploiting him. He's not valuable enough to be attached to and for them to provide backing to him at this point though. They're just keeping their names out of it.
They also probably don't think he will make them much money beyond the hit single so why bother investing more?
This is no different then when teams release a player who catches a case. They want to distance themselves from it altogether. The difference here is that once the shit dies down they will still have the option of continuing his contract should they choose.
Edit: We actually don't completely disagree. Money is definitely part of it but it's deeper than the 200k they would have to put up to bail him out. They probably weighed whether it was worth investing in bailing him out and backing him while he goes through all this and figured it wasn't worth it. They already cashed out on his hit single.
12. "I think b/c Keef felt/appeared to be emboldened by the attention" In response to Reply # 11 Mon Feb-23-15 12:47 PM by teefiveten
Pitchfork was loving the idea of taking that fool to the gun range and filming it
whereas it didn't seem like Shmurda would have gone down that route as far as really giving Pitchfork or Epic that kind of material to work with
i know folks were cringing at that video of him performing but he was being offered an out
plus keef doesnt' seem apologetic or remorseful and he's had friends and family die AFTER "blowing up" because the flames kept being fueled
this is my observation on it. it may not be the most accurate. it's not like they had to "control" shmurda the short time he was signed. he was pretty much doing shows and stuff. he wasn't threatening anyone or displaying weaponry like keef. and this case that's against him was being built long before he blew up
14. "Fuck this shmurda dude." In response to Reply # 11
Just listened to one of his garbage-ass songs (first time I've heard anything by him). Just more "I'm a thug" trash talk raps. Can't feel sympathy for a dude promoting negativity having some negative shit happen to him. Fuck Chief Keith too.