Latest on MJJC

Michael Jackson a Billion-Dollar Man--Billboard Magazine

Thanks to the surge of fan interest sparked by Mr. Jackson's death, the singer generated an estimated $200 million posthumously
Click to expand...

200 million or 1 billion??

confusing
 
Among the unpaid bills at the time of his death, Mr. Jackson had not paid $341,000 to Thomas Mesereau, the lawyer who successfully defended him against charges of child molestation in 2005. That bill and many other creditors' claims, including invoices from several other law firms, have now been paid.

I'm glad Mr. Mesereau's claim was settled. His pay was well deserved.
 
144 said:
the line between editorial and the rest of the outlet, has been blurred, where Michael is concerned. and, there's nothing more sinister than media which mixes arguable supposed truths, with lies. even the things that seem to be true, have two sides to them, so that makes THEM questionable, as well.
Click to expand...


Yes, the WSJ is not fair to MJ.
 
144 said:
it's interesting that they said that MJ's catalogue share was estimated at 80 mill a year, and yet the media liked to say that he was in debt while alive.
Click to expand...

he was paying the interest of the $300M loan with that money, so it's quite possible that he wasn't getting $80M a year from the catalogue.
 
ivy said:
he was paying the interest of the $300M loan with that money, so it's quite possible that he wasn't getting $80M a year from the catalogue.
Click to expand...

quite possible? which means you are not certain beyond the shadow of a doubt about what you are saying. that's the first time anyone has come up with an 80 mill figure. before, someone else came up with 19 mill. the fact is, neither you nor anybody knows what's really going on here. but what is certain, is that as you were speaking i heard bumper music from the atv catalogue on the radio. something i heard a lot of when i was on this site, before June 25 and after. and i'm in just one small place in this world.

all i keep hearing is you and others repeating what i heard in the media...no proof. just media speculation.
 
okay let's do some math

It's reported that Mijac had a 16.5% interest rate so lets assume that's the interest rate for all the loans

that means $49.5 M in interest just on Sony/ATV. (on the $300M loan)
I'll assume $3M interest on Mijac (article states that Mijac has $11M yearly interest which is several millions higher than the catalog generates)
Neverland will have $4.5M in interest ( for the 24.5M loan)
add that up $57 M in yearly interest
subtract that from $80M
and you get $23 M

which is pretty close to the $19M number

and yes although we cannot give the exact numbers, we can almost certainly say that he was paying back the interest from the money that he was earning because if he didn't all those assets could have been repossessed.

ps: sometime back a partial scan of the sony/atv refinancing deal was posted. on that scan it was also written that the income is put into an account to pay the interest first.

edited to add: I'm in no way saying that MJ was poor or broke, absolutely not !! He was still earning millions of dollars. All I'm saying that he had to pay back interest on the loans from that earnings.
 
Last edited:
ivy said:
okay let's do some math

It's reported that Mijac had a 16.5% interest rate so lets assume that's the interest rate for all the loans

that means $49.5 M in interest just on Sony/ATV. (on the $300M loan)
I'll assume $3M interest on Mijac (article states that Mijac has $11M yearly interest which is several millions higher than the catalog generates)
Neverland will have $4.5M in interest ( for the 24.5M loan)
add that up $57 M in yearly interest
subtract that from $80M
and you get $23 M

which is pretty close to the $19M number

and yes although we cannot give the exact numbers, we can almost certainly say that he was paying back the interest from the money that he was earning because if he didn't all those assets could have been repossessed.

ps: sometime back a partial scan of the sony/atv deal was posted. on that scan it was also written that the income is put into an account to pay the interest first.
Click to expand...

again, as long as you ASSUME, you can't convince me of anything. as long as you are not totally certain, you can't convince me. you want to bring up that scan..go ahead. i don't have any reason to believe it is true. telling me that you are assuming something, is like you telling me that 99 percent is the same as 100 percent. despite efforts to ground that thinking into me, i don't buy it. i have no proof that MJ was ever in debt. none. and i won't see any. all i know is the list of songs on the catalogue that i hear everyday. and the comfort that he wasn't in debt.

you began your post with the word 'reported'. you lost me right there, as far as having confidence in what you had to say.

as far as i am concerned, the could- have- been- repossessed reports are greatly overexaggerrated. i've heard it for too many years. other entertainers actually did have stuff reposessed, even before reporters had a chance to forecast a doomsday for them. so...almost doesn't work with me. show me something where MJ actually had to give up something. where he actually DID foreclose. where he actually DID lose the catalogue. in 15 plus years..nobody has been able to do that. so..i stand by what i believe.

when there is a threat to go bankrupt, people go there quickly. it doesn't take 15 years of doomsday forecasting for it to happen. Donald Trump went bankrupt, and reporters didn't even have a chance to forecast it. TLC went bankrupt quickly, and they weren't even that far into their careers. if mj was the inept person people like to portray him as..he should have gone bankrupt 40 times over, by now.
 
Last edited:
*MissChanel* said:
Don't they mean he made 1 billion since his death?

If so, wow! It took the Elvis estate 30 years to do that.
Click to expand...
oh yes! He took 30 years and MJ took just 1 year! They should have mentioned that in their article but unfortunately, they wouldn't.

@ the last sentence, as if Ep's estate is as lucrative as MJ's. His estate is nothing compared to MJ's. lol
 
Originally Posted by 144,000
it's interesting that they said that MJ's catalogue share was estimated at 80 mill a year, and yet the media liked to say that he was in debt while alive.
Click to expand...
quite possible? which means you are not certain beyond the shadow of a doubt about what you are saying. that's the first time anyone has come up with an 80 mill figure.
Click to expand...

Not really. That 80million figure came out before on a YEAR 2006 NYT article.

Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/business/yourmoney/14michael.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
 
144 said:
show me something where MJ actually had to give up something. where he actually DID foreclose. where he actually DID lose the catalogue.
Click to expand...

well he gave sony the option to buy the 25% of the catalogue
and he gave 50% of Neverland to Colony Capital

and that's something that I'll never believe that he "wanted" to do (especially if he had no debt like you say). IMO it was something he "had" to do..

anyway let's put this into "agree to disagree" category
 
mjrulesdaworld said:
Not really. That 80million figure came out before on a YEAR 2006 NYT article.

Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/business/yourmoney/14michael.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
Click to expand...

actually i don't see an eighty million dollar figure in that article. what i saw, was this:

For those without access to Mr. Jackson's personal accounts, assessing exactly how much money has passed through his hands over a career that spans decades is impossible.

ivy said:
well he gave sony the option to buy the 25% of the catalogue
and he gave 50% of Neverland to Colony Capital

and that's something that I'll never believe that he "wanted" to do (especially if he had no debt like you say). IMO it was something he "had" to do..

anyway let's put this into "agree to disagree" category
Click to expand...

you're right about agreeing to disagree. you still don't give a statement that garners proof of anything, and it is your opinion. and although i don't need TMez to prove anything, it seems that some on here are more likely to believe what comes out of his mouth. and he said that MJ CHOSE to leave Neverland after a suggestion to do so, from TMez, because of the nightmare he lived there, at the hands of Sneddon. the idea of giving someone twenty five percent of his own share of a catalouge POSSIBLY, also doesn't make sense to me. there is no proof he gave up any part of his fifty percent. the sentence you say, in itself does not make sense. either he gave it up or he didn't. there is no possibly gave it up(option)..in this era of take somthing that is available to you....i'll never believe your statement. there simply is no logic to reconcile the doomsday reports about MJ, with what ACTUALLY took place in his day to day life. and what stands out is what did NOT happen. and what did NOT happen, is foreclosure...bankruptcy, and the relinquishing of his fifty percent share of his catalogue..unlike the bankruptcy that DID happen to TLC music group, for example.

and we will agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:
bunch of BS from WSJ.

And why is it that his debt stucked at 300million and never paid off?
 
the 16.5 interest rate was only for the MIJAC publishing, not SONY/ATV.

the 300 millions debts is only for SONY/ATV, not MIJAC
 
that is what was REPORTED. that's not proof, to me, that it was true. but i will leave this convo..this is like the arguments about whether or not MJ bleached his skin, with the haters.

only in this case, it's arguing whether or not he was in debt, with other fans. in either case, there are people who will stick to their guns, whether or not there is proof.
 
Last edited:
144 said:
actually i don't see an eighty million dollar figure in that article. what i saw, was this:

For those without access to Mr. Jackson's personal accounts, assessing exactly how much money has passed through his hands over a career that spans decades is impossible.
Click to expand...
I remembered I read that figure on that NYT article but now I couldnt find that particular part!! They might have edited it coz it's a little different from the last time I read it! I have that link bookmarked so I know! It can't be my own imagination!
 
mjrulesdaworld said:
I remembered I read that figure on that NYT article but now I couldnt find that particular part!! They might have edited it coz it's a little different from the last time I read it! I have that link bookmarked so I know! It can't be my own imagination!
Click to expand...

lol..well..apparently, they edited it if it was true..or maybe they stuck a lot of figures in your mind and you might be thinking something that wasn't there.

or...you might have seen the figure...but..as you can see..it's not there. instead, what i pasted up there IS there. it doesn't matter. the media is not to be believed..even if they DID have an eighty million dollar figure there, which for SOME reason is NOT there now. but the truest thing they did say, is they don't know shit. well..the tamer version of that, is pasted, above.

one thing that is ALWAYS true in all these articles is the pattern that's in THAT new york times article. the headline will speak as if they are sure of something. then, as you delve into the article, they will come up with the disclaimer, that admits they don't necessarily subscribe to ANYTHING that they just wrote in said article. it's as if they added the legalese, to protect themselves. it's just like commercials on the radio. they tell you something that is too good to be true, and, then, at the end of the commercial, they say the legalese really fast. and the legalese discounts the whole commercial. study and you will see it's ALWAYS true. so who says media is reputable?
 
Shit I'am sorry BUT why we the fans worry about HIS and soon to be his KIDS money??? Its look like the estate is doing pretty well and it WILL grow hugely... I don't care about that loan or whatever he was SUPPOSE to have and was stuggle to pay off.(If True) Now HIS kids and His estate can pay whatever loans, bills or other stuff they THINK he still has to pay off... I"m though
 
Rasta Pasta said:
they are finally saying...sad that its after he passed.. but Michael has been a billionaire for years...before Oprah even could say the word
Click to expand...

:clap::clapping:

Exactly... but the media experts have known that for years, but they literally refused to report about that, because of the media anti-Jackson agenda, and tabloid is not interested in positive reports about MJ....
 
ivy said:
well he gave sony the option to buy the 25% of the catalogue
and he gave 50% of Neverland to Colony Capital

and that's something that I'll never believe that he "wanted" to do (especially if he had no debt like you say). IMO it was something he "had" to do..

anyway let's put this into "agree to disagree" category
Click to expand...

GIVE IT UP...some will never understand the dynamic of his finances. Like you said, if MJ had no money trouble...why wasn't Mesereau, the single most important lawyer in MJ's life, paid the 341K$?

He helped MJ retain his freedom.

Selling half of Neverland and offering Sony to buyout 50% of his Sony/ATV share to guarantee his Barclays loan?

MJ had money buy because of huge debt...his money was used to cover interest. The 3 bodyguards in their 1st ABC interview said they saw HUGE amounts of money coming in...but it couldn't come fast enough before it all went out.


marc_vivien said:
the 16.5 interest rate was only for the MIJAC publishing, not SONY/ATV.

the 300 millions debts is only for SONY/ATV, not MIJAC
Click to expand...

Did you read Ivy's post...it is an ASSUMPTION.

ETA I truly believe MJ's financial difficulty indirectly caused his death...Just like I believe unscrupulous people took advantage of him & created that financial mess he was in. Be it family...associates...they all contributed to that mess.
 
mkgenie said:
200 million or 1 billion??

confusing
Click to expand...

My interpretation: 200M$ is money that has come into the estate so far...I am sure Sony doesn't send them a check every two weeks.

See they did not even mention revenue from DVD sale in the WSJ...?

While the Billboard make reference to money generated...regardless whether the money is sitting in the estate account or in Bravado's.

That is why I say both articles, together paint a good picture of where things stand financially.
 
Michael Jackson's estate generates estimated $783 million since King of Pop's death one year ago

By Jim Farber
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Monday, June 21st 2010, 4:00 AM
The bright memory of Michael Jackson hasn't dimmed a watt in the year since his death. Neither, it seems, has his earning power.

In the 12 months since his demise last June 25, the octopus-like arms of Jackson's media empire have generated deals we estimate to be worth an "are-you-sitting-down" figure of $783 million.

It's a gargantuan haul, certainly large enough to plop Jackson on top of Forbes Magazine's ghoulish annual list of "Top-Earning Dead Celebrities." (This year's list comes out in October).

Jackson already made last year's list -- at No. 3, behind winner Yves Saint-Laurent (with $350 million) and Rogers & Hammerstein (at $235 million), and just ahead of Elvis ($55 mil). Jackson earned his place with a take of $90 million, a not-too-shabby sum considering it measured just the three months following his untimely demise.

It's important to note that our jaw-loosening estimate for Jackson's one-year haul doesn't involve all the money his work and image have generated in that time. Here's what it does include:

1. CD sales
2. The movie "This Is It"
3. The subsequent appearance of "This Is It" on DVD and Blue-ray
4. A new Sony deal that funnels money to the estate for years' worth of future releases and projects
5. Key parts of his publishing

The last mentioned piece of the puzzle includes moolah fueled by Jackson's 50% stake in the Sony/ATV catalogue, which has the publishing rights to songs by everyone from the Beatles to Taylor Swift. That catalogue is believed to generate up to $80 million a year, half of which goes to Jackson, according to USA Today.

In addition, Jackson owns most of Mijac Publishing, which controls his own recordings. Though the L.A. Times reports the company has a value of $75 million, it's not known what yearly profits those rights have thrown off during this moment of intensified interest. However, Billboard's publishing expert Glenn Peoples says those figures could add "tens of millions of dollars" to our tally.

Neither does the $783 million figure involve the sums which billow in from merchandising, a source which remains the largest income spigot for many departed celebrities. Those figures didn't make the cut because they can't be clearly defined. Rest assured, however, that in Jackson's case they're gynormous, especially since superstars commonly command between 70% and 90% of profits from merchandising.

At the same time, our kingly estimate for Jackson's earnings takes into account the total gross generated by the aforementioned aspects of his work. Meaning we're talking about money created for all interested parties, not just his own estate, which gets just a cut of each deal. More, Jackson's estate has to square away his oft-reported debt, which has been estimated to be as large as $500 million. Still, measuring the sums that can be known makes an undeniable point - that Jackson remains an earnings colossus.

In terms of "This Is It," Sony Pictures says the flick made $72 million in U.S. box office sales. Worldwide, the company puts the film's grosses at roughly $103 million. That makes "It" the top grossing concert movie of all time, beating the previous champ: Miley Cyrus 3-D concert flick from 2008 by nearly a third. In its DVD and Blue-ray version, "This Is It" enjoyed revenues of nearly $43 million, based on 2.7 million units moved, according to Sony.

In terms of album sales, Jackson sold 8.9 million CDs in the U.S. between his death on June 25th and the end of '09, according to Rolling Stone. The Wall Street Journal has reported that he moved 31 million worldwide through last Dec. 31. This year, Jackson moved just over 723,000 albums in the United States, according to figures from Nielsen/SoundScan. The worldwide numbers, and downloaded single sales for the full year, won't be released by either Nielsen/SoundScan or Sony/BMG Records until June 30th, one week after the first anniversary of Jackson's death.

Still, from the sales figures we already know, we can estimate a profit to the estate of roughly $62 million. That's because a star of Jackson's stature probably gets a royalty rate of about $2 per CD. If we estimate the total amount of money created by known CD sales -- figuring $10 generated by each disc -- the total tally generated would come to nearly $320 million. And that's not counting international sales for 2010.

The other trenchant factor in Jackson money stream has to do with a deal, reported back in March, in which Jackson's label, Sony, will pay the estate a reported $250 million (doled out over a number of years), for dozens of never-before heard Jackson songs. These include songs for a "new" album, scheduled to go on sale in time for Christmas. The deal also covers reissues of classic Jackson albums, plus remixes and DVDs of his videos.

For its quarter billion dollars, the company also bought the right to licence Jackson's material for video games, films and other theater ventures, like a possible Broadway play or a Vegas show based on his music by Cirque Du Soleil (a la the Beatles' "Love"). Already the video game part of the deal has paid off for Sony/BMG. Last week, game developer Ubisoft announced a new singing-dancing program that will use Jackson's music and image in a game playable on Playstation 3, X box, and Wii devices.

That particular pact tips off what could be the most significant ongoing boost to Jackson's fiscal power. Whatever new machines and media delivery systems develop from this point on will be able to sell some piece of the Jackson magic, ensuring that M.J.'s financial legacy will loom as large as his creative one, essentially, forever.

jfarber@nydailynews.com
 
Memefan said:
GIVE IT UP...some will never understand the dynamic of his finances. Like you said, if MJ had no money trouble...why wasn't Mesereau, the single most important lawyer in MJ's life, paid the 341K$?

He helped MJ retain his freedom.

Selling half of Neverland and offering Sony to buyout 50% of his Sony/ATV share to guarantee his Barclays loan?

MJ had money buy because of huge debt...his money was used to cover interest. The 3 bodyguards in their 1st ABC interview said they saw HUGE amounts of money coming in...but it couldn't come fast enough before it all went out.




Did you read Ivy's post...it is an ASSUMPTION.

ETA I truly believe MJ's financial difficulty indirectly caused his death...Just like I believe unscrupulous people took advantage of him & created that financial mess he was in. Be it family...associates...they all contributed to that mess.
Click to expand...

Tmez said that something was overlooked, that even he didn't see. then he entered it in a claim, and it was paid so for you to say it wasn't paid, is a lie. that doesn't mean MJ had financial trouble. it just means something was overlooked, initially. but i guess some think they could peer into his personal finances, when even the media admitted they could not. nobody here has a claim to 'understanding Michael's financial dynamics'. and you are saying it contributed to his death, instead of propofol. so..everybody has an opinion, but apparently, some want theirs to be stated as fact. at least, i had the dignity to say, that i believe what i believe. i didn't pretend to know what is in his pocketbook. and though you claim to know, the reality is, you don't know either. nor do you know that financial situations contributed to his death. but what i do know, is the media, is apparently, a powerful thing.

no..i don't believe he was in debt. i remember his confidence when talking to Bashir. but, then, i know if MJ said he wasn't in debt, himself, you would believe he was lying. like everybody here, you wish to believe what you wish, no matter what.

for you to overlook that TMez claim was paid off, when it was noticed, proves that you come across as if you badly want to believe MJ was in debt.

for you to overlook the latest interview that Tmez did, about MJ, where he was asked all the things he thought about MJ, and not once did Tmez say, that MJ was lagging in paying Tmez, but instead, said MJ could command millions, just by making an appearance, proves, that that is something you don't want to believe, because it puts a positive light on his financial situation. for you to overlook that Tmez said that MJ was the victim of FRIVOLOUS lawsuits, says that you don't want to see MJ's financial picture as a positive one.

it's funny TLC admitted to having money troubles and going bankrupt. Barry Manilow admitted going bankrupt. but Michael never admitted to any financial trouble, and said he was financially fine, in his interview to Bashit. but of course, i know you would say, MJ is a liar.

wow..where's the respect? 'just because you read it in a magazine or see it on the tv screen don't mean it's factual', doesn't mean anything to you.

'some things in life some just don't wanna see', is also what MJ said. i guess i understand that lyric more than ever.

believe the bodyguards, who some dispute were even there as long as they say they were there. believe anybody but MJ. and if Tmez says something financially positive about MJ, don't believe that? wow..where is the respect?

it's clear u will believe those who cast a negative light on his finance, but will not believe those who cast a positive light on it..no matter who they are.
 
Last edited:
Everyone has some kind of debt. Michael had alot of money in life, but he also had some debt. IMO it's nobody's business to know about said debt.

Sadly the thing that helped Michael start to get out of his debt, was his untimely death. With increased interest in him, sales have gone through the roof, and will continue to do so when future releases come out.....thus will help eventually pay off any remaining debt.
 
144 said:
well..i keep looking all over this board, and i see so many fans in heartbreak mode, right now, talking about how their so called 'friends' keep making jokes about Michael..even after his death..a person they never met. do you know what is responsible for that? the 'reputable' media.

there are hundreds of thousands of media. most of them are supposed to be reputable. yet, everything that haters think about MJ is copy and paste from that SAME media. the standout media had plenty of chances to refute the tabloids. but they didn't. they sounded like copy and paste from the tabs. NO exceptions. Every media outlet sounded like the tabloids, conerning him. NOBODY stood out as the exception. NOBODY. so, now, fans are faced with trying to save a reputation that DOESN'T need saving.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you. There was once a clear difference between tabloid and serious news now it is all one. The "serious" media persecuted and executed a modern day lynching of Michael. It was shameless. You should read Charles Thomson's article on Huffington Post. I simply do not trust any media outlest anymore. Everything is propaganda- they all have their own agenda. NOBODY is objective and unbiased. It is pretty sick. They had their field day with Michael. Michael never went into bankruptcy because he never had to. I've read stories before June 25 that he was in debt anywhere from 300 to 500 million. How do they know exactly. Can we see the actual loans? Can we access his bank records? Because if they could then they would quote an actual amount- not speculate like they have done about him all his life.

I also always thought The Wall Street Journal was very reputable, but I also thought CNN was reputable. But after the trial and even after his passing CNN was using court transcripts from ppl the defense totally discredited- all to make their story more sensational.

Also, Mr. Messereau was clearly asked on several occasions if Michael had payed him and he always said he had taken care of him. Now, if we can go and check the creditors' list I will be satisfied that they are telling the truth. I simply do not trust any media outlet anymore- not after years of speculation and lies about Michael. It's going to take a long long time for me to trust them again if ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top