Madonna: Pop Music’s First Billionaire? Madonna $1 Billion Vegas Deal being Offered

[Moonwalker.Fan]

http://blogs.forbes.com/clareoconno...ics-first-billionaire/?boxes=Homepagechannels

How much would a Las Vegas casino pay to have the Material Girl strutting her 52-year-old stuff across the stage on a nightly basis? If we are to believe the UK’s Sun newspaper, she’d get a $1 billion payday. The tabloid set tongues wagging on both sides of the pond by claiming Madonna is weighing up a billion dollar offer to take up a five-year residency on the Strip.

If this is true, Madonna would become pop music’s first billionaire, joining other female entertainers like Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling and Oprah Winfrey on our billionaire ranks. She would also once and for all show the pretender to her crown, Lady Gaga – who beat her by six spots on Forbes’ Celebrity 100 rich list this year – that she still reigns as Queen of Pop.

So, is it true? Don’t be so sure. The Sun’s report is entirely unsourced - it doesn’t even include the standard “insiders tell us” designation. It also neglects to name the casino thought to be making the offer. Still, that didn’t stop media outlets across the world from repeating its claims. Even veteran connoisseur of the rich and famous Robin Leach seems to believe the deal is imminent, reporting the story on his Vegas lifestyle blog.

Luckily, one local paper, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, thought to check the Sun’s math:

My source did some quick math: If Madonna landed in the 4,300-seat Colosseum at Caesars Palace, the most likely suitor, she would have to average $200 a ticket, net $3 million a week and work four or five nights for 50 weeks to make $750 million over five years.

“That’s impossible. She’s not going to work 50 weeks,” said the source.

Celine Dion, one of the best-drawing entertainers in the world, recently announced a new three-year $100 million deal that calls for 70 shows a year.

I am inclined to side with the Review-Journal: $1 billion, even for a five-year contract, and even for a superstar like Madonna, seems outlandish.

One other small, perhaps pedantic concern: the Sun says this deal is worth £500,000,000, which they’ve equated to $1 billion. This hasn’t been the exchange rate for years; it’s more like $770 million. Splitting hairs, maybe, but if the Sun can’t even nail the current exchange rate, how can we trust their claims?

Live Nation, who signed a ten-year, $120 million touring contract with Madonna in 2007, did not reply to Forbes’ request for comment on this story. Watch this space, though.

----------

Madonna $1 Billion Vegas Deal being Offered
http://entertainment.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978466624


A recent Madonna Vegas deal could bring the singer a $1 Billion payday. This would give the "Material Girl" plenty of reason to consider moving to Las Vegas for the next five years.

According to The Sun UK, Madonna has been offered $1 billion to move to Las Vegas for five years. Other performers have done this before including Elton John, Cher, and Celine Dion. Madonna is already the fourth highest earning female entertainer in all of the world, but with this new deal she'd reach new heights, becoming a billionaire. Madonna most recently signed a big deal in 2007 worth $80 million to work with Live Nation.

This is obviously a great Vegas deal for Madonna, but what about the fans? Celine Dion has performed in Vegas for several years and will be returning for shows in 2011. Her ticket prices range from $55 to $250 a piece. How much will they charge for the all-time queen of Pop? Will the tickets be reasonable or astronomical to cover her billion dollar deal?

 

[Moonwalker.Fan]

...I am really impressed how they (the so-called economic journalists) are permanently trying to reduce any Michael´s financial background...= he was/is the billionaire long before any "artist" from showbiz!!!

 

[Travis]

...I am really impressed how they (the so-called economic journalists) are permanently trying to reduce any Michael´s financial background...= he was/is the billionaire long before any "artist" from showbiz!!!

I love how this article suggests that Madonna has to earn her crown back. Last time I checked, she didn't give it away. It's still firmly upon her head and always will be. Lady Gaga is miles away from being Madonna. She tries to be, but she's not. They all try. I'm beginning to think that the song, "She's Not Me", is about wannabe pop-tarts being heralded as the next Madonna.

Michael will ALWAYS be the king regardless of whatever the current flavor of the month is and the same goes for Madonna. I get so sick and tired of reading stupid articles trying to discredit and devalue the hard work that these two put in to become what they are. They did it first and they did it better!

 

[Moonwalker.Fan]

As for Michael - they (the so-called journalists) do know the truth, but they intentionally want to spread lies and hush up the facts, simply they know why!
Any other is by them better or has to be better than Michael, because... they would have to admit the truth, No Bealtes, no Elvis, no Madonna... but Michael.

Its not about praising Michael for any price, its just a fact.

 

[144000]

...I am really impressed how they (the so-called economic journalists) are permanently trying to reduce any Michael´s financial background...= he was/is the billionaire long before any "artist" from showbiz!!!

yeah..but in reality i don't think any media source knows the true bank account of any entertainer, though they claim to. i don't even know that they are certain about Oprah. they admitted as much where Michael is concerned, with a disclaimer, admitting that they didn't know how much money passed through MJ's hands, throughout his decades long career.(they didn't want to use the term 'successful' though a career decades long, would logically have to be successful). and it's better that the media doesn't know the bank accounts of the rich and famous. that way, the media's agenda to cause strife, can't have any legitimacy.

 

[Tony R]

How is it that you read an article praising another artist as being negative towards Mike?

As great as he was (and he was the best ever) the whole music world does not revolve around him.

And Madonna won't do this for a few years yet (if ever) it smacks of looking back and she only ever looks forward.

 

[144000]

How is it that you read an article praising another artist as being negative towards Mike?


As great as he was (and he was the best ever) the whole music world does not revolve around him.

And Madonna won't do this for a few years yet (if ever) it smacks of looking back and she only ever looks forward.

why is it you give the impression that that is what everybody in this thread did? first of all, this is an MJ forum. second of all, the world did revolve around the caricature sized attack the media made against Michael. he stood out as a special target for them, and we all know this. so, if fans overreact, it's justified. nobody else in music has gotten devlalued for their 'lifestyle', to the affect that Michael did. and in comparison. other artists get predictable praise for things they didn't even achieve yet. so, for you to claim that MJ fans are putting down Madonna to raise Michael, is unfounded. if anything, they're putting down the media for their caricature attacks against Michael. something that isn't easily forgettable. as for Madonna, i haven't diminished her achievments, the way the media diminished Michael's.

how come you can't see the correlation between how the media caricature-attacked Michael, and how they compartively don't do that to any other artist? whatever achievments Madonna achieved(and she achieved much) the media doesn't say to her, 'because of your lifestyle, you made less money'. but that is essentially what they said to Michael.

first they began with saying he's 'weird' and eccentric'. and then they decided to equate that with their assanine idea that he was a financial flake(and that's after they admitted in a disclaimer, that they didn't know how much money passed through MJ's hands, in his life). they simply didn't do that with any other artist. and that's where these MJ fans are coming from.

 

[xo_lola_xo]

I love Madonna but I am a MJ fan first and even if I wasn't, factually, he was a billionaire first. Despite of what people say or what the truth is about his money in his later life, his catalogues were worth a billion or two.

 

[Courtney]

I know this about Madonna but I have a question to ask:

Is/was Michael truly a billionaire? I'd like think he is/was but has this been set in stone? Can this be confirmed anywhere?

 

[ASIS]

Is/was Michael truly a billionaire? I'd like think he is/was but has this been set in stone? Can this be confirmed anywhere?

*looks at neverland* well.. i've found my proof

Anyway, I think both MJ and madonna have over a billion dollars in their accounts. But I can't say for sure of course.

 

[Tony R]

why is it you give the impression that that is what everybody in this thread did? first of all, this is an MJ forum. second of all, the world did revolve around the caricature sized attack the media made against Michael. he stood out as a special target for them, and we all know this. so, if fans overreact, it's justified. nobody else in music has gotten devlalued for their 'lifestyle', to the affect that Michael did. and in comparison. other artists get predictable praise for things they didn't even achieve yet. so, for you to claim that MJ fans are putting down Madonna to raise Michael, is unfounded. if anything, they're putting down the media for their caricature attacks against Michael. something that isn't easily forgettable. as for Madonna, i haven't diminished her achievments, the way the media diminished Michael's.

how come you can't see the correlation between how the media caricature-attacked Michael, and how they compartively don't do that to any other artist? whatever achievments Madonna achieved(and she achieved much) the media doesn't say to her, 'because of your lifestyle, you made less money'. but that is essentially what they said to Michael.

first they began with saying he's 'weird' and eccentric'. and then they decided to equate that with their assanine idea that he was a financial flake(and that's after they admitted in a disclaimer, that they didn't know how much money passed through MJ's hands, in his life). they simply didn't do that with any other artist. and that's where these MJ fans are coming from.

I see the media calling Michael weird or eccentric as a thin attack although as we know Michael did his very best to pertetuate that image.

I see the media taking personal attacks at Michael's appearance as an attack although again he was responsible for some of that.

I see them calling him a paedophile as an attack, but that was the fault of the accusers.

I don't see an article where Michael is not mentioned but an article stating that another artist has been offered a big contract as an attack on Michael. That is called paranoia.

 

[gerryevans]

I don't see an article where Michael is not mentioned but an article stating that another artist has been offered a big contract as an attack on Michael.

I agree.

That is called paranoia.

Disagree. It's not paranoia. It's MJ mindset. When you're on this board, and I'm speaking mainly for myself, you're in total MJ mode and mindthink. You relate everything to him.
But that's probably not unusual. I'm sure if you go to any artist specific site, the fan is thinking first and foremost of that artist and it comes through in posts.

Go to an Elvis site and even if it's in an OT section, you mention MJ's name, and it becomes mostly about Elvis and MJ. That's the nature of the forums.

 

[Tony R]

I agree.



Disagree. It's not paranoia. It's MJ mindset. When you're on this board, and I'm speaking mainly for myself, you're in total MJ mode and mindthink. You relate everything to him.
But that's probably not unusual. I'm sure if you go to any artist specific site, the fan is thinking first and foremost of that artist and it comes through in posts.

Go to an Elvis site and even if it's in an OT section, you mention MJ's name, and it becomes mostly about Elvis and MJ. That's the nature of the forums.

I hear you, but I don't understand it. I'm the opposite, when I'm with friends I'm 100% more defensive about MJ as I know I may be in the minority and I feel I need to defend him.

When on an MJ forum or speaking with friends I know love Michael, I rest my defenses as I know these people are huge fans so I feel I can slag off the HIStory tour or have a go at Invincible because I know we all think the man is great but don't have to look at everything through rose tinted glasses.

 

[gerryevans]

When on an MJ forum or speaking with friends I know love Michael, I rest my defenses as I know these people are huge fans so I feel I can slag off the HIStory tour or have a go at Invincible because I know we all think the man is great but don't have to look at everything through rose tinted glasses.

Are your friends as diverse as the multitude of fans on this board? It sounds as if you all may have the same tint on your glasses or none at all in your opinion, my meaning being that basically they may all generally VIEW Michael similarily as you do, even though you may disagree on critiques of his work.

There is every spectrum of fan on this board with every conceivable view of him. To you, someone may be seeing him with a rose color tint but to others they're seeing him totally clearly, while I may think they're wearing the darkest pair of shades in creation. No one view is absolute. It's all just personal opinion, based on instinct and individuality.

So to get back on OT, good for Madonna...and MJ was the first pop billionaire (I tried not to, but I just had to say it).

 

[love is magical]

I hear you, but I don't understand it. I'm the opposite, when I'm with friends I'm 100% more defensive about MJ as I know I may be in the minority and I feel I need to defend him.

When on an MJ forum or speaking with friends I know love Michael, I rest my defenses as I know these people are huge fans so I feel I can slag off the HIStory tour or have a go at Invincible because I know we all think the man is great but don't have to look at everything through rose tinted glasses.

Being a MJ fan is very different than being a fan of other artist. We cannnot deny the fact that no other artist, politician, celebrity suffered the magnitude of media attack that Michael suffered. So, we tend to be very defensive about Michael. Even in a MJ forum, we are still very protective about him as if we are afraid some naysayers will come here and spread bad vibes. In fact, I did see some very mean posts here and those posts made the life of the moderators difficult.

I understand this article is purely about Madonna and not a single word is written on Michael. But, since it's being reposted on a MJ forum, it's not difficult to understand how we relate this to Michael. When we read the phrase "Madonna is pop world's first billionaire", we can't help but to wonder really? Seriously, Michael made a fortune as early as in the 80's. Again, the media intentionally diminished Michael's achievement and gave credit to someone else.

Most MJ fans here are open minded. Most recognized Michael's weaknesses. Most fans never bring down other artists. We show people respect. I guess we are not only fans to Michael's music, we are also fans to Michael the person. Honestly, Michael makes me a better person. Michael never in his life said anything bad on other artists, so I don't feed the need to bring other down and bring Michael up. After all, Michael's legacy is to stay forever. The "paranoia" in other artists' forums are much worse.

 

[Travis]

I would have to believe that Madonna has already become a billionaire at this point. There is no way to truly know. I have read estimates of her fortune being in the 600 million range, but let's look at things realistically...

Madonna's last tour alone made over 400 million. ONE TOUR. Madonna has done several tours over the span of her nearly 30 year career (not to mention the albums, products, movies, and all other things she's attached her name to). At this point, I would have to believe she has an incredible bank account.

 

[smoothcriminal12]

Listen guys, just saying, Michael being King is not fact. It's purely subjective.

 

[Tom]

The fact that this is a Michael board isn't relevant here. We have this board so you can talk about another musical artist, i.e. not comparing them to Michael. Yes, some of you bring Michael in to things where he was never spoken of in the first place.