Daisley's payout wasn't really a choice. Sharon essentially said, "We're so tied up in legal shit right now we can't give you royalties but we will give you a $50k payout. Things were getting a bit shady with Uriah Heep at the time so Daisley took the deal (with Kerslake's encouragement). Also, on the first released of Ultimate Sin, only Jake and Ozzy were credited. Bob protested and they had it corrected it for the next pressing.
It's always a choice. "Well, if you're tied up in legal shit right now, you won't want my lawyer bothering you."
But the credits aren't the be all and end all. There need not be ANY writing credits on an album for the artists to be paid. The important thing is whether the filing with the publishing company is accurate, and whether any contractual requirements are met (some contracts require "credits" on an album; that's common with producers, for example.)
In any event, I'm not sticking up for Sharon or Ozzy, just pointing out that these issues can be complicated and often have multiple facets to them. And as much as we love the artists we love, they're not always right on the mark (Bill Ward's "unsignable" contract comes to mind; all contracts are "signable", it's just whether you WANT to sign it or not.)
I think we all know that “unsignable” was never meant to be taken literally. I mean, if the contract said that Ozzy, Geezer, and Tony get 99.9%, the crew gets everything left over, and Bill gets a coupon for one year of free diaper service...most normal people would define that as “unsignable”.
I don't know. I understand your point, I certainly have nothing to counter it, except... I personally just don't believe it. Bill was the one that went public with the whole thing, and he played the martyr. He's not a dumb guy, and these guys have been around the block enough to know that you have counsel available to make the hard decisions/do the hard negotiating. He went for the sympathy vote (and, to be fair, got it from a lot of people). I'm just hardened to the "oh, people, I just want to be there SO BADLY, but it's unsignable".... I think it serves to distance Bill from his culpability in the situation. If he wanted to bad enough, he would have signed it. That's what leverage is. I'd've had a ton more respect for him if he came out and said "look, I love you guys, but a gig's a gig, and it's just not worth my time to be on the road for ten months doing two songs a night and watching Tommy Two-toes doing the rest of the set. It's not a deal I want to sign." Instead of the victim card, "oh, Tone and Oz are just fucking me over SO.. BAD!".
Then again, I'm sort of not a fan of any of these arguments, be it Bill Ward, Michael Anthony, or Ace/Peter. Those guys are not in for a reason, and it's not all savagery from the Big Machine.