Williams was NEVER as much as that.
He was their booking agent/promoter!
Not. The. Same. Thing.
I know he has always been fond of referring to himself wrongly as their first manager, but does that make it so? Especially when others in the know, and Brian's boys themselves, have denied it? They obviously would never have stayed with him even if there had never been an Eppy.
But, let's say they did stay together. It's a no-brainer that we would never have heard of the Beatles, because nobody could have accomplished what Brian did. Nobody.
Consequently, Mr. Williams has absolutely nothing to be regretful about. Because if he hadn't (quote-unquote) "sold the Beatles" to Brian ~ if, because of Mr. Williams, Brian had been unable to become their manager ~ NOTHING would have happened. Nothing. No Beatlemania.
But.... maybe the second scenario would have been preferable to Mr. Williams? That is, if it couldn't have happened with Allan Williams at the helm, it shouldn't have happened at all? Is he petty enough to feel he would be happier now if there had been no worldwide Beatles phenomenon ~ simply because he could never have been a part of it? That would be the epitome of envy, to deny the world this monumental culture change out of spite. So now all he can do is fudge the truth, to try and capture a bit of fake stardust for himself. Damn. He oughta just be thankful he's mentioned in the history books at all. It's more than most of us have.
I can understand Williams using the "first manager" terminology, but what confuses me is, what about the reporters and publications who have always been totally aware of the truth? What's with them using that term?