Michael Jackson a Billion-Dollar Man--Billboard Magazine

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.

there is no way to prove that everyone has debt. i know it might challenge some egos, but, some people do take better care of money....and even if someone wants to say that that is not true, there is never a good occasion to make blanket statement, because there never is any proof that a blanket statement is true. nobody ever provides flat out proof to ever support a blanket statement. there is one thing that i will keep repeating that even the nasty media was willing to admit...and that is, in every one of their articles, they provide a disclaimer, saying that they don't know what they're talking about. and i am not exaggerrating. in a minute, i'll provide you the quote from a new york times article. since we don't know MJ's financial situation, which you admit to, then, the logical conclusion is, that you don't know if he was in debt. the media admits to not knowing, so, perhaps we can become humble and admit the same. while you are trying to soften a blow, the fact is, this battle concerning michael is worth fighting, because the media is trying to make him less than he is. and using bogus financial info is part of that.

Michael was never a billionare while he was living.

here is one who always knows when to come in, and what to say, based on no evidence. a person who just looks at Michael, and decides..hah..he couldn't possibly be a billionaire. why is it, that just about every time i see a quote of yours..i could almost predict it?

edit: here is the quote from the new york times 2006 article that speaks for all media, and consequently, should, i repeat SHOULD speak for us:


'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.'

how bout i put that quote up a second time:


'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.'

and a third time. and i'll give you three guesses as to which quote is the correct answer. the first two guesses don't count.


'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.'

that is a quote guaranteed to prevent the media from being sued. yet, some people still believe the media.
that quote suggests that nobody knows who has access to MJ's inner wallet. so, you have no proof that what you are hearing is what was said by somebody who had the divine power to turn into a dust mite, and step inside MJ's wallet, and tell us what is really going on.

so, the conclusion is...anybody coming up with numbers, has no solid evidence to base it on. for the person who just wants to look at MJ, and see him as financially less, just because..well, this nyt quote is for you. as well as the rest of us.

some posts are worth posting, because the media is launching a concerted effort to diminish MJ's legacy, with no grounds. and the scariest thing would be, if MJ fans fell for it. and, not caring whether i win friends or not, it's worth me saying, that at least a couple of MJ fans, in here, are falling for it.

what do you have to base this diminishing of MJ''s financial legacy, while he was living, on? nothing.

i realize 40 is the new 30, but assume is not the new certainty.

and estimate, is not the new definite. and, apparently, is not the new, unequivocally. every time people talk about MJ's financial situation, they use those vague terms, and try to turn them into terms of certainty. this means, the media got you to skip over their disclaimer, and read the dirt on Michael Jackson.

let me put down that quote one more time, for the road, just in case i get kicked out, for attacking this subtle campaign in the bud.


'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.'

now..let me provide you with the link that that quote is in...unless they deleted that quote out, last night, because they saw this thread:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/business/yourmoney/14michael.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all

please read carefully.

now..i heard a fan say that an eighty million dollar figure was once in this article..so..who knows..if it's possible, somebody from the new york times might edit out the quote i just pasted, multiple times. but it was there, when i last checked. and that quote IS THEIR quote.

anybody putting a bad light on MJ's financial ways, while he was living, is basing their info on the quote i just pasted, multiple times.

so..to quote Michael from the Diane Sawyer interview, and to paraphrase the title of a lovely Whitney Houston ballad...

all of us have NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING, on which to base any Michael Jackson financial talk.

if the MJ fans are going to be the ones who let the media do this..then what will an MJ fan say to their children, thirty years from now, if still here, that will either make or break other peoples' views on MJ's financial legacy, after the media has completed their revisionist history? will you say to your kids, that MJ was a financially deadbeat dad, while he was alive?

the media is working on it, in hopes that MJ fans will believe it, so, MJ won't need any enemies to lessen him.

edit: here is that whole article with the disclaimer in it:

What Happened to the Fortune Michael Jackson Made?

function getSharePasskey() { return 'ex=1397448000&en=492a3835f00914ce&ei=5124';} function getShareURL() { return encodeURIComponent('http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/business/yourmoney/14michael.html'); } function getShareHeadline() { return encodeURIComponent('What Happened to the Fortune Michael Jackson Made?'); } function getShareDescription() { return encodeURIComponent('The pop star made millions with his outsize talent and marketing genius and he invested wisely, but then he went on a spending spree.'); } function getShareKeywords() { return encodeURIComponent('Music,Bankruptcies,Sony Corp,Michael Jackson'); } function getShareSection() { return encodeURIComponent('business'); } function getShareSectionDisplay() { return encodeURIComponent('Business / Your Money'); } function getShareSubSection() { return encodeURIComponent('yourmoney'); } function getShareByline() { return encodeURIComponent('By TIMOTHY L. O'BRIEN'); } function getSharePubdate() { return encodeURIComponent('May 14, 2006'); }
writePost();



By TIMOTHY L. O'BRIEN
Published: May 14, 2006
This article was reported by Jeff Leeds, Andrew Ross Sorkin and Timothy L. O'Brien and written by Mr. O'Brien.
Skip to next paragraph Enlarge This Image
Wayne Harris


Add to Portfolio


Go to your Portfolio »

Enlarge This Image
Motown Records
The Jackson 5 was paid royalty rates from Motown in the 60's that were much lower than what Mr. Jackson earned as a solo artist during his heyday in the 80's.

michael3.190.jpg
Associated Press
Mr. Jackson performing solo in the 80's.

michael4.190.jpg
Hasan Jamaili/Associated Press
Michael Jackson, left, and one of his children and a security guard in Bahrain. Mr. Jackson recently agreed to an overhaul of his finances.



SEATED in a $9,000-a-night luxury suite in the sail-shaped Burj Al Arab hotel in Dubai, Michael Jackson played the role of a wealthy pop star as he met with two senior executives of the Sony Corporation last December. From the opulent setting to Mr. Jackson's retinue of advisers, there was little indication that Sony's troops were paying a visit because they were concerned that he was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy proceedings.
Sony was worried because Mr. Jackson was the company's partner in a lucrative music publishing business that included songs by the Beatles and other musicians. If Mr. Jackson became insolvent, his 50 percent share of that $1 billion business would be up for grabs to the highest bidder, leaving Sony to confront the uncomfortable possibility that it would be forced into a new, unpredictable partnership not of its own choosing.
With the waters of the Persian Gulf and a teeming, prosperous emirate splayed out far beneath them, the group got down to business. According to those who attended the meeting and requested anonymity because confidential financial matters were discussed, Mr. Jackson was pensive and cooperative, seemingly well aware of the gravity of his situation despite the grandeur of his surroundings. He only chirped up occasionally to remark on what a wonderful investment the catalog had been.
After listening to Mr. Jackson, Robert S. Wiesenthal, a senior Sony executive, eventually proposed that Sony would help the singer find a bank to lend him more than $300 million to pay off his debts. In exchange, Mr. Jackson would possibly forfeit a portion of his half of the Beatles catalog.
Just last month, Mr. Jackson — still swamped in debt, with his musical career in stasis and his personal life limned by scandal — agreed to that financial overhaul. It is likely to strip him of about half of his remaining stake in the catalog, which he has relied on as a financial lifeline for about a decade. According to executives involved in the restructuring talks, Mr. Jackson used the catalog, as well as copyrights to his own songs, as collateral for roughly $270 million in bank loans he took out to fund a spending spree that includes upkeep for his sprawling California ranch, Neverland, and other exotic luxuries.
Given how precarious Mr. Jackson's financial situation appears to be, it is unclear how long he will be able to retain his remaining stake in his prized music catalog. A reckoning appears near, and Mr. Jackson's ability to hold onto his fortune has proven to be as fleeting as stardom itself.
The arc of Mr. Jackson's career, and his management of his business and financial affairs, tracks some of the timeworn truisms about the realities of the entertainment industry and those who inhabit its upper tiers: a child star unwittingly beholden to others who control his bank account; a more mature adult who is savvy about packaging and marketing himself but who grows increasingly undisciplined about his spending; and, finally, a reclusive caricature locked inside a financial and emotional fantasyland of his own making.
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. Sales of his recordings through Sony's music unit have generated more than $300 million in royalties for Mr. Jackson since the early 1980's, according to three individuals with direct knowledge of the singer's business affairs. Revenues from concerts and music publishing — including the creation of a venture with Sony that controls the Beatles catalog — as well as from endorsements, merchandising and music videos added, perhaps, $400 million more to that amount, these people believe.
WHATEVER portion of those earnings actually ended up in Mr. Jackson's wallet is also difficult to assess because it would have to account for hefty costs like recording and production expenses, taxes and the like that would have reduced income from his business endeavors. Mr. Jackson could not be reached for comment.
"I think that Michael never had any concept of fiscal responsibility, or logical fiscal responsibility. He was an individual that had been overindulged by those that represented him or worked for him for all of his life," said Alvin Malnik, a former financial adviser to Mr. Jackson and a former lawyer for Meyer Lansky, the late mob kingpin. "There was no planning in terms of allocations of how much he should spend. As a businessman, you can forecast your spending for the next six months to a year. For Michael, it was whatever he wanted at the time he wanted.
"Millions of dollars annually were spent on plane charters, purchases of antiques and paintings," Mr. Malnik continued. "If you want to take a trip to London, that's one thing. If you want to continue that trip and have your entourage of 15 or 20 people go with you, it gets expensive."
Others close to Mr. Jackson say that the performer's finances have not deteriorated simply because he is a big spender. They say that until the early 1990's, he paid relatively close attention to his accounting and kept an eye on the cash that flowed through his business and creative ventures. After that, they say, Mr. Jackson became overly enamored of something that ensnares wealthy people of all stripes: bad advice.
"Some people can go to a person like Michael and say, 'Listen, this is out of hand.' Other people would much rather say, 'Whatever you want,' and they don't care," said Frank Dileo, who was Mr. Jackson's manager from 1984 to 1989. "I think after me, there were a lot of people that didn't care. All they were interested in was what they were getting. And they killed the golden goose."
Michael Jackson has spent a lifetime surprising people, in recent years largely because of a surreal personal life, lurid legal scandals, serial plastic surgeries and erratic public behavior that have turned him — on his very best days — into the butt of late-night talk-show jokes and tabloid headlines. But when his career began to take off nearly four decades ago as a member of the pop group the Jackson 5, fans and entertainment industry veterans recognized something else about the pint-size musical dynamo that was unusual: He was in possession of an outsize, mesmerizing talent.
Deke Richards, a writer and producer who worked closely with Berry Gordy, the founder of Motown Records, in shaping the earliest stages of Mr. Jackson's career, recalls watching the singer in one of his earliest performances in Los Angeles. It was 1969 at the Daisy Club, a Beverly Hills venue located on Rodeo Drive, and while the entire Jackson entourage impressed Mr. Richards, Michael was the star.
"It was almost evident that it was something special, it was like the reincarnation of Frankie Lyman," said Mr. Richards, referring to the 1950's teenage vocalist who turned "Why Do Fools Fall in Love" into a hit. "Nobody had seen anything like that since Frankie, a kid with chops like that who could sing like that. It was like a 30-year-old man was inside this little boy."
Although Mr. Gordy promoted Mr. Jackson as an 8-year-old wunderkind in advance of the Daisy Club appearance, the singer was just weeks shy of his 11th birthday when he performed there. Even so, he had already spent years in talent shows and performing in seedy Midwestern clubs under the aegis of Joe Jackson, his dictatorial and ambitious father. Joe Jackson and Mr. Gordy were the singer's twin mentors during Michael's early career; neither of them could be reached to comment for this article.
Despite Michael Jackson's youth, Mr. Gordy and others recognized that in addition to the singer's talent he also was an observant, diligent understudy keen to learn all that he could about the workings of the music business.
"Michael had a knowingness about him," Mr. Gordy recalled in a 1994 interview with Billboard magazine. "He paid close attention to every single thing I said. Even when my back was turned, I knew he'd be watching me like a hawk. The other kids might have been playing or doing whatever they were doing, but Michael was dead serious. And he stayed that way."
Mr. Jackson had his own recollections of those years. "When you're a show-business child, you really don't have the maturity to understand a great deal of what is going on around you. People make a lot of decisions concerning your life when you're out of the room," he wrote in "Moon Walk," his 1988 autobiography. "Berry insisted on perfection and attention to detail. I'll never forget his persistence. This was his genius. Then and later, I observed every moment of the sessions where Berry was present and never forgot what I learned. To this day, I use the same principles."
Mr. Gordy paid many of Motown's most successful acts, including the Jackson 5, far stingier royalty rates on their albums than they might have earned in a later era, and certainly lower than what Mr. Jackson himself earned during his heyday in the mid-to-late 1980's. According to J. Randy Taraborrelli's 1991 biography, "Michael Jackson: The Magic and the Madness," Motown paid the Jackson 5 a royalty rate that was just a fraction of what Mr. Jackson secured for himself later in his career.
"There was a lot of pressure on Michael as a youngster to perform for the family," said Shelly Finkel, a former rock 'n' roll promoter who currently manages professional boxers and who periodically intersected with the Jackson family when Mr. Jackson was a child. "You get a kid like Michael Jackson and he's unsophisticated with his money and people take advantage. It's not a real upbringing. He didn't mature as a human in all directions."
The Jackson 5 jumped from Motown to CBS Records in 1975, and the company rewarded them with better contracts. They also received guaranteed fees of at least $350,000 per album, according to Mr. Taraborrelli's book, well above their Motown fees but still not approaching the stratospheric, multimillion-dollar guarantees Mr. Jackson would begin getting in the 1980's. Concerts offered another source of income, but it was still income that Mr. Jackson shared with his siblings and upon which his father kept a tight rein.
Mr. Jackson eventually broke with his father and the Jackson 5, a move toward creative and financial independence marked by his collaborations with Quincy Jones on a trio of albums. The most memorable of those is 1982's "Thriller," which eventually racked up sales of 51 million copies globally, according to the Guinness World Records, making it the best-selling album in history. Yet "Thriller" took a heavy toll, Mr. Jackson's associates say, setting a benchmark of success that the entertainer never stopped chasing.
Mr. Jackson's pre-expense share of the "Thriller" bounty — including the album, singles and a popular video — surpassed $125 million, according to a former adviser who requested anonymity because of the confidential nature of Mr. Jackson's finances. Those who counseled him in the "Thriller" era credit the pop star with financial acumen and astute business judgment, evidenced by his $47.5 million purchase of the Beatles catalog in 1985 (a move that served to alienate him from Paul McCartney, the Beatles legend who imparted the financial wisdom of buying catalogs to Mr. Jackson during a casual chat, only to see Mr. Jackson then turn around and buy rights to many of Mr. McCartney's own songs).
John Branca, an attorney who structured the purchase for Mr. Jackson and represented him from 1980 to 1990 and periodically after 1993, said he saw no signs of wayward financial behavior in the years straddling the release of "Thriller." "I think Michael was brilliant for a good part of his career — savvy, involved, on top of everything," Mr. Branca said. "I also think he was a marketing genius."
In the midst of the "Thriller" phenomenon, Mr. Jackson's appetites were still relatively modest by celebrity standards, and he had just begun to experience the possibilities of riches he had never known in his childhood. Acquaintances from that period say that he would occasionally borrow gas money, and he still lived in the Jackson family home in the suburban Encino section of Los Angeles.
Although he made an unsuccessful attempt in 1987 to buy the bones of Joseph Merrick, more famously known as "The Elephant Man," for $1 million, it wasn't until the end of the 1980's that he began to exhibit more baronial tendencies. In 1988, he made his $17 million purchase of property near Santa Ynez, Calif., that became Neverland.
At the same time, Mr. Jackson was redefining the concept of spectacle in pop music. He hired Martin Scorsese, the film director, to direct a video for his album "Bad," a clip that one adviser with direct knowledge of the production budget said cost more than $1 million. The same adviser said that Mr. Jackson netted "way north" of $35 million from a yearlong "Bad" tour that began in 1987, and that heading into the 1990's Mr. Jackson was in sound shape financially.
While Mr. Jackson began to routinely rotate through different teams of advisers in the 90's, and pour more of his own money into pricey projects like videos, at least one of his advisers from the period contends that Mr. Jackson kept a lid on his spending until even the late 1990's.
"I didn't ever see him take all kinds of people all around the world," said James Morey, who served as one of Mr. Jackson's personal managers from 1990 to 1997 (when Mr. Jackson fired him and turned for advice instead to the Saudi sheik Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal). "Michael is very bright, and Michael pretty much knew — even when he was advised something was too expensive — if he felt it was right for the art, he had the means to pay for it. He wasn't oblivious to what budgets were."
Other events, however, suggest that Mr. Jackson's finances were already under strain by the mid-90's. He retreated from working regularly after the release of "Dangerous" in 1991 and settled a child-molestation lawsuit for about $20 million. More significantly in terms of his finances, he had to sell Sony a 50 percent stake in the Beatles catalog in 1995 for more than $100 million, which one adviser said helped shore up the singer's wobbling accounts.
Mr. Jackson wouldn't produce another studio album of completely new material until 2001, yet whenever he surfaced with other works that were compilations of previously released material he still expected promotions and spectacles beyond anything done before. For his 1995 album, "HIStory," for example, he sought to shoot an extravagant "teaser" video to promote it. He shot the video in Hungary for millions of dollars and hired Hungarian soldiers to march in it.
"When they were shooting this thing in Hungary, the production company would call me in the middle of the night and say, 'Michael wants more troops,' " said Dan Beck, a senior marketing executive who worked on the video. "He dreamed the big dream. It was P. T. Barnum."
MR. JACKSON indulged in other pricey vanity projects, including what one adviser believes to be the most expensive — a 35-minute film called "Ghosts" that he co-wrote with the novelist Stephen King and shot in 1997 with Stan Winston, a special-effects whiz that cost well above $15 million. One person with direct knowledge of Mr. Jackson's spending said that the star paid a substantial portion of as much as $65 million on video projects in the mid-90's — outlays that contributed significantly to his financial problems.
Mr. Jackson also came under the sway of an assorted rotation of new advisers who apparently convinced him to make heavy bets on risky investments that never panned out. In late 1996, according to court papers, he met Myung Ho Lee, a Korean adviser who emerged as a central figure in the performer's debt binge.
Documents indicate that by late 1998, Mr. Jackson had already taken out and depleted a $90 million bank loan and Mr. Lee arranged a new, $140 million loan from Bank of America that was collateralized by the Beatles catalog and used to pay off earlier debts. Just several months later, the $140 million had evaporated and Mr. Jackson, fresh off of his divorce settlement with Lisa Marie Presley, obtained another $30 million line of credit from Bank of America. Mr. Lee said in court papers that in late 2000 he raised the original $140 million bank loan to $200 million, using part of that loan to pay down the $30 million credit line, which had been entirely tapped.
Although documents indicate that Mr. Lee brought at least two risky investment opportunities to Mr. Jackson, Mr. Lee still managed to castigate the performer in court papers for a lack of financial discipline in 1999 and 2000. "Jackson became fixated on obtaining expensive possessions and feeding his ego by listening to the advice of hucksters and imposters," Mr. Lee noted.
All the while, Mr. Jackson's spending ramped up. As described by several of Mr. Jackson's former associates, he routinely borrowed large sums of cash to pay for things he may not have been able to afford. Marc Schaffel, who formerly served as an adviser on Mr. Jackson's television projects, alleges in a lawsuit scheduled for trial next month that Mr. Jackson failed to reimburse him for outlays of more than $2.2 million, much of it in cash.
THESE expenses included $46,075 in August 2001 for appraisals and architectural work done as Mr. Jackson considered buying a home in Beverly Hills; a $1 million fee paid to Marlon Brando in September 2001 so that the film star would appear at a Madison Square Garden event and in a video honoring Mr. Jackson; more than $380,000 for the purchase of a Bentley Arnage sport sedan and a custom Lincoln Navigator sport-utility vehicle; and $250,000 in June 2003 for antique shopping in Beverly Hills.
Mr. Malnik, who began advising Mr. Jackson a few years ago, said in an interview that the entertainer had spent about $8 million annually on plane charters, antiques, paintings, hotel rooms, travel and other personal expenses, and that the annual upkeep for Neverland and its staff was about $4 million. A forensic accountant who testified in Mr. Jackson's criminal trial last year said that the singer's annual budget in 1999 included about $7.5 million for personal expenses and $5 million to maintain Neverland. None of this explains the scale of Mr. Jackson's borrowing, however, or the rapidity with which he burned through those funds.
The leading drain on Mr. Jackson's ample resources may have been monumentally unwise investments that apparently produced equally colossal losses. Mr. Malnik estimates that some of Mr. Jackson's advisers squandered $50 million on deals that never panned out — what he describes as amusement-park ideas and "bizarre, global kinds of computerized Marvel comic-book characters bigger than life." Mr. Malnik said that he had loaned Mr. Jackson $7 million, part of which was used to settle various lawsuits related to deals gone awry.
It's possible that Mr. Jackson's biggest costs may have shifted in early 2000 away from his shopping sprees to simply shouldering enormous monthly interest payments on his debt. According to one executive involved in his affairs, Mr. Jackson was making monthly payments of about $4.5 million in 2005 on $270 million in debt. That works out to an annual interest rate of about 20 percent, a toll more familiar in the worlds of credit cards, subprime lending and loan sharks and not commonly encountered by wealthy people with substantial assets. But Mr. Jackson's wildly errant spending had forced him to confront harsher realities.
By the time Mr. Jackson finally met with the Sony executives in Dubai last December, his onerous interest payments had left him in a bind. Fortress Investment Group, a New York-based investment group that specializes in distressed debt, bought Mr. Jackson's loans from Bank of America in 2003 after the singer missed some payments. It then began levying high interest rates. Fortress, which did not respond to an interview request, threatened to call its loan on Dec. 20 last year because of Mr. Jackson's delinquency. What especially concerned Mr. Jackson about that, said one person familiar with the talks, was that it was just five days before Christmas.
TO keep Mr. Jackson afloat, Sony arranged an extension with Fortress and brought in Citigroup and other potential lenders to arrange new financing at a lower rate. At a meeting in London on Valentine's Day earlier this year, Citigroup offered Mr. Jackson a new loan with a 6 percent rate. Citigroup struck a deal because Mr. Jackson agreed to give Sony the right to buy half of Mr. Jackson's 50 percent stake in the Beatles catalog at a future date for about $250 million, providing a backstop for Citigroup if Mr. Jackson defaulted.
To the amazement of others involved in the talks, Fortress then offered Mr. Jackson the same terms — a measure of how desirable the Beatles catalog has been and continues to be to the various financiers and advisers who have hovered around Mr. Jackson since he bought it two decades ago. By April, a final deal was in place. Citigroup ended up providing a $25 million mortgage on Neverland, most of which Mr. Jackson used to buy back a 5 percent stake in the catalog held by one of his early advisers, Mr. Branca.
For his part, Mr. Malnik said he thought Mr. Jackson might have been able to continue to afford his lifestyle and errant spending if he had continued to work, but, of course, Mr. Jackson chose to work less and less. "For Michael, it was, whatever he wanted at the time he wanted," Mr. Malnik said. "This was perpetuated over a great number of years. Ultimately, if you don't change the course of things, you get to the end of the day."
Even at the end of the day, however, some people still remember the beginning. When put on hold, telephone callers to Mr. Gordy's office are treated to the 1971 ballad "Got to Be There," Mr. Jackson's hit on his first album as a solo artist for Motown.

......................................

you have to gird up the energy to read articles thoroughly. you'll see that they're all copy and paste, and filled with legal disclaimer terms, that i have bolded, interviews never done, which means that the article writers are making up the info, and a statement that gives away that MJ was not in debt. and that statement is in bold. the statement about the Beatles catalogue. obviously it always poured in money. plus it wasn't just the beatles in it. the last statement saying 'to the amazement', means the article writer is coming up with stuff that doesn't make sense, in order to somehow 'justify' the spin that the article writer is putting on their article to convince people, who aren't willing to read it thoroughly, that MJ was in debt while he was alive.

ALL ARTICLES ARE WRITTEN LIKE THIS..CHOCK FULL OF TERMS THAT SAY ALL THEIR INFO IS ALLEGED
 
Last edited:
Michael was never a billionare while he was living.
And I assume you were his personal accountant. Michael was more of a billionaire than you will ever be. Michael had more money than you've ever dreamed of. So unless you were his accountant and can back it up, it's better to not say anything at all. Financially ''broke'' Michael Jackson had everything you will forever dream of.
 
waow !!:bugeyed Why so many disputes about something that finally nobody knows anything except what the newspapers report? nobody here can prove anything, unless being in estate's secret or being a :fortuneteller: all we have is what we read. There is no evidence that this is true but there is no evidence that this is wrong - these arguments are incredibly useless -
 
waow !!:bugeyed Why so many disputes about something that finally nobody knows anything except what the newspapers report? nobody here can prove anything, unless being in estate's secret or being a :fortuneteller: all we have is what we read. There is no evidence that this is true but there is no evidence that this is wrong - these arguments are incredibly useless -

there is one use for my argument. giving MJ the benefit of the doubt, in a world where that is against the law.

this is an instance where i decided to put up a post, that might set me up for having barbs thrown at me. and this is an instance, where it's worth every verbal barb, and i am more than willing to take it. and i stand by my solid statement. what is any more solid evidence that the media knows nothing, than the media putting up their own disclaimer?
 
Last edited:
there is one use for my argument. giving MJ the benefit of the doubt, in a world where that is against the law.

this is an instance where i decided to put up a post, that might set me up for having barbs thrown at me. and this is an instance, where it's worth every verbal barb, and i am more than willing to take it. and i stand by my solid statement. what is any more solid evidence that the media knows nothing, than the media putting up their own disclaimer?

The medias will always be the medias - we will ever be sure of what they report, you'll always have a doubt, what you read is it true or not ? whatever the reputation of the media who's reported, nobody is able to tell us that it's true ... or not. :cheeky:
 
The medias will always be the medias - we will ever be sure of what they report, you'll always have a doubt, what you read is it true or not ? whatever the reputation of the media who's reported, nobody is able to tell us that it's true ... or not. :cheeky:

but the question you have to ask is this. what is in human nature to make people lean toward the media statements being true?

why is it that people look at Michael and say...financial mess..and look at anybody else, from Murdock to Gates, to The Sheik, and say...multibillionaire?

where is the evidence that supports that human nature?

what is in the human nature to say, that Sony is good with the money, but MJ was bad with the money?

what is it in the human nature to make people say that the executors make everybody feel better about the money handling now that MJ is dead. but when MJ was here, people didn't feel good about the money handling? what evidence supports that human nature?

what evidence makes people believe that MJ's estate is suddenly in the money less than a year after his death, after being supposedly so out of whack for fifteen years, prior to his death?

in other words, what evidence supports human nature to see Michael as having been financially inept? what is the real reason for assuming that MJ wasn't a multibillionaire?

what evidence can people come up with, besides being bothered by how Michael spent money that doesn't belong to the people that were bothered by it? and what is the real reason why people were bothered by something that was none of their business?
 
Last edited:
but the question you have to ask is this. what is in human nature to make people lean toward the media statements being true? I would say it's human nature !! some are able to have a doubt and others no

why is it that people look at Michael and say...financial mess..and look at anybody else, from Murdock to Gates, to The Sheik, and say...multibillionaire? I would say it's again and always the fact of the medias I mean : reported bad news about Michael, as always !! who's bothered by Murdock or Gates ? Nobody

where is the evidence that supports that human nature? this is called the deep conviction, right or wrong way

Aren't we a little bit off topic ? :cheeky:
 
Aren't we a little bit off topic ? :cheeky:

cheeky smiley again? lol. no..we're not off topic.

and...how did that last line appear mysteriously in my quote?

maybe since YOU decided to finish my sentence...you knew we were on topic, because that human nature has everything to do with this media campaign, aimed at Michael's financial image, while he was living.

so why do YOU believe it is a deep conviction, AllForLove?

because now, i believe we're getting somewhere. this whole issue is part of a broad topic. but saying it's off topic, is convenient, because it keeps it from going to a place that people might not want to go to. because it might be embarrassing...to say the least.

so yeah..i'm VERY interested in what you mean by 'deep conviction'. unless, somehow we won't be allowed to talk about it. or unless no one wants to talk about it for some reason.

so you have me curious, AllForLove....what is the 'deep conviction'? and why did you attribute me to having said that, in the quote box, when it was you who said it? and how did you manage to put that sentence in the quote box?

but first..what is the 'deep conviction'? it's worth me asking several times.
 
Last edited:
but the question you have to ask is this. what is in human nature to make people lean toward the media statements being true?

why is it that people look at Michael and say...financial mess..and look at anybody else, from Murdock to Gates, to The Sheik, and say...multibillionaire?

where is the evidence that supports that human nature?

what is in the human nature to say, that Sony is good with the money, but MJ was bad with the money?

what is it in the human nature to make people say that the executors make everybody feel better about the money handling now that MJ is dead. but when MJ was here, people didn't feel good about the money handling? what evidence supports that human nature?

what evidence makes people believe that MJ's estate is suddenly in the money less than a year after his death, after being supposedly so out of whack for fifteen years, prior to his death?

in other words, what evidence supports human nature to see Michael as having been financially inept? what is the real reason for assuming that MJ wasn't a multibillionaire?

what evidence can people come up with, besides being bothered by how Michael spent money that doesn't belong to the people that were bothered by it? and what is the real reason why people were bothered by something that was none of their business?

^^Mad f**king respect!!! respect!!!

What you said about them trying to revise MJs financial legacy is sooo true! I believe it is not just Michaels financial legacy but also his music and human legacy. I said before 'the powers that be' are trying to erase Michael from the history books by omitting him and flat out lying about him. I think those are good questions, WHY do some look at Michael and think financially unstable? Why can't Michael be a billionaire? I could go into a whole rant about it lol! but I'll stay ontopic.
 
It's great news to hear that He is a Billionaire now after the fact.Too bad he can't spend some of that money or pay his bills or travel where he wants,Ect.. I guess that's someone's dream that he never see that money while he was alive.That's ok,His kids will get some of it someway, somehow.
 
It's great news to hear that He is a Billionaire now after the fact.Too bad he can't spend some of that money or pay his bills or travel where he wants,Ect.. I guess that's someone's dream that he never see that money while he was alive.That's ok,His kids will get some of it someway, somehow.

he was able to buy things, so he spent money. that's why he was accused of 'overspending' it..

when you live right, you do have the wealth, if you don't, it doesn't matter what people think, you don't have the wealth. MJ lived right. i'm sure there's ways he spent money without having it liquid too near him, cus someone would probably have mugged him...he was a wise human being.
 
Jun 22, 2010 1:06 am US/Pacific
King Of Pop's Estate Has Rebounded Since Death

RYAN NAKASHIMA, AP Business Writer
LOS ANGELES (AP) ― The money is rolling in. The bills are being paid. And all those people who said Michael Jackson might earn more in death than in life are being proved right.

Like the estates of Elvis Presley and Yves Saint Laurent, Jackson's has grown immensely since he died on June 25, 2009.

Without Jackson's lavish spending sprees, and with the help of new revenue pouring in from nostalgia over the reign of the King of Pop, estate co-executors John Branca and John McClain have dramatically turned around Jackson's finances.

A kingdom that was on the verge of collapse from more than $500 million in debt now looks to be able to support his three children and his mother and donate healthily to children's charities.

The estate has earned more than $250 million in the year since he died. Executors used some of that to pay off $70 million in debt, including the $5 million mortgage on the Jackson family compound in Encino, part of Los Angeles. The interest payments on the remaining debt are now covered by a steady flow of cash.

"They're off to a spectacularly good start," said Lance Grode, a former Jackson lawyer and adjunct professor at the University of Southern California Law School. He added, however, "there's a long way to go before they pay off all of their debts."

A rundown of deals suggests that Jackson's fortune will be even bigger than could have been realized by a planned series of comeback concerts:

— A posthumous deal to sell unreleased Jackson recordings with Sony Music guaranteed $200 million over seven years. It has already brought $125 million to the estate.

— The film "This Is It," based on his final concert rehearsal footage, grossed $252 million worldwide. Sony Pictures paid the estate $60 million in advance, with an undisclosed amount more to come from DVD sales.

— Licensing deals on merchandise sold by Universal Music Group's Bravado unit and a new dance game by Ubisoft Entertainment brought in $26 million in advances. More is possible if unit sales are high.

— The Mijac Music catalog of copyrights, on songs that Jackson wrote, generated $25 million in the past year, thanks to heavy airplay on radio stations and song and album sales.

— Music publisher Sony/ATV, the copyright holder of the Beatles' and other artists' songs, posted double-digit percentage revenue gains in the year through March. That netted Jackson's estate, which owns a 50 percent stake, $11 million.

— Other income, including from a rerelease of Jackson's autobiography, "Moon Walk," and sales of commemorative tickets to his canceled concerts, brought in another $25 million.

The tally does not include a deal with Cirque du Soleil for shows inspired by Jackson's music, in which the estate will share half the costs and profits when the performances begin in late 2011. Nor does it account for a deal in the works to nearly double the estate's income from Sony/ATV. That cash goes to pay down most of Jackson's remaining debt.

According to co-executor Branca, Jackson's longtime lawyer and business manager, the new deals follow a script the two set out shortly before the singer died.

"When I met with him before he died we went through an agenda. John (McClain) and I are really executing on that," Branca told The Associated Press. "We're doing the things we think Michael would have wanted."

Several people have been paid for overdue bills after spending years trying to track the singer down. Others who haven't yet been paid say they have been treated professionally by the estate; a night and day change from his old regime.

"We couldn't (collect) until unfortunately he passed away," said Joseph Akhtarzad, a Jackson family friend who owns the Santa Monica-based Video & Audio Center. Last month, the estate settled a $128,429 tab with Akhtarzad for electronics goods owed since 2007.

Thomas Mesereau, who successfully defended Jackson in his 2005 child molestation trial, said the estate recently paid his law firm $341,452 for services provided after the trial, when Jackson moved to Bahrain. The firm revived its claim in September because it gave up dealing with Jackson's previous managers.

If Elvis is any example, a moderate level of earnings could flow into Jackson's estate for decades.

Sony Music said more than 31 million Jackson albums have sold worldwide since he died, a stratospheric number for a music industry in decline.

With 8.3 million albums sold in North America, he was the top-selling artist in 2009, easily topping Taylor Swift's 4.6 million. It marked the most albums sold in a year since Usher topped 8 million in 2004, according to Nielsen SoundScan.

Even since the start of this year, Jackson songs have been played on the radio in the U.S. and Canada 140,000 times, about 10 times the pace before he died, according to Nielsen. Nearly a million Jackson albums have sold this year and a new album of unreleased material is set to hit stores in November, roughly in tandem with a new video game in which fans can mimic his signature moves.

"In the year that Michael has gone, we realize how incredibly talented he was," said Marty Bandier, the chief executive of Sony/ATV. "The guy was the King of Pop and more."

___

AP Entertainment Writer Anthony McCartney contributed to this story.


http://cbs5.com/wireapentertainment/Michael.Jackson.s.2.1764946.html
 
You've all missed it

what made mj a gazillionaire is what he GAVE not earnt.
Nobody will ever remember him as wealthy and thank god cos he contributed more to the world than money could ever do.

I'm glad his children can continue that legacy with the incredible wealth they now have.
 
You've all missed it

what made mj a gazillionaire is what he GAVE not earnt.
Nobody will ever remember him as wealthy and thank god cos he contributed more to the world than money could ever do.

I'm glad his children can continue that legacy with the incredible wealth they now have.

You are right, but this point of view, or perspective of a fan means almost nothing in the world of media.

You have to realize the impact on society and all the readers of all the articles mentioning Michael as - wealthy, the best, the billionaire, or whatever...

On the contrary, people do know Michael as the artist, its something "natural", but after all the BAD years, media attacks, trials, showing Michael as broken, financially destroyed....

Now, everything is opposite.
Its not about artistry and performances.

this is totally another social scale.
 
Rupert Murdoch - the CEO of a newscorp.

A friend of president Bush who helped the president to keep the war going.

-Michael hated wars.

He owns WSJ, Fox and The Sun

So, the article is a lie.


It's that clear
 
And I assume you were his personal accountant. Michael was more of a billionaire than you will ever be. Michael had more money than you've ever dreamed of. So unless you were his accountant and can back it up, it's better to not say anything at all. Financially ''broke'' Michael Jackson had everything you will forever dream of.
And I assume you were his personal accountant to know he was a billionare?
 
Eric, why do you think he wasnt a billionaire?
Please, explain us that your... perspective ...

What makes you think that?
 
I don't see why you guys are going crazy over this article. It simply explains that since MJ's death, he has earned $1 billion dollars. Why is that so negative?
 
he was able to buy things, so he spent money. that's why he was accused of 'overspending' it..

when you live right, you do have the wealth, if you don't, it doesn't matter what people think, you don't have the wealth. MJ lived right. i'm sure there's ways he spent money without having it liquid too near him, cus someone would probably have mugged him...he was a wise human being.

You're right but I meant He can't spend the money now,He's not here to spend it..When He was living and he had all those greenbacks, He spent on what he wanted and did what he wanted and Certain people were jealous because he was getting too rich for their blood so they wanted to stop him from getting more money in his pockets and continually always Sue him,Embarrass him,Extort him for money and keep him in debt. It broke his heart everytime he was sued,Some for nonsense,unheard reasons,other times,the claims were legit. I always wanted him to live right and take good care of himself and be there for his children and most of all, pay his bills and if something is wrong with why his accountants didn't pay his bills on time in full leaving him always in debt,I was hoping he'll find out who's responsible and clean house and try to get people he could trust to help him with his finances. And You're also right,If you spend money too lavishly everytime and people see you do this and are jealous of you,you'll always get ridiculed and yes he would have gotten mugged,well he did get mugged,He was mugged out of his life and it had to take someone he trusted to stab him in his back to do it. He was a kind giving Smart man that wanted to live the way he wanted.Had he been White, they would have left him alone and let him be.:no:
 
Eric, why do you think he wasnt a billionaire?
Please, explain us that your... perspective ...

What makes you think that?
Because of all accounts, when MJ was living, he was never recognized to have assets over a billion. I've seen his assets valed in different reports over the years from 300-600 million. Now keep in mind, that didn't inlcude the debt that the crazy MJ fans like to pretend he didn't have. If MJ was a billionare, he never would have sold half of neverland ranch. If MJ was a billionare, there never would have been an auction for MJ's personal items, only to be called off once MJ secured a big payday for the London concerts.

I think what some people are confusing here is personal wealth and the amount of money someone generates. I'm sure that MJ has generated over a billion in revenues over his life. But that doesn't make him a billionare becase all; the money is not his. Even in the Martin Bashir interview, MJ didn't say he was a billionare when asked about his money.
 
Last edited:
You've all missed it

what made mj a gazillionaire is what he GAVE not earnt.
Nobody will ever remember him as wealthy and thank god cos he contributed more to the world than money could ever do.

I'm glad his children can continue that legacy with the incredible wealth they now have.
no...i haven't missed it. the article just posted 'cleverly' spoke as if MJ never gave to charities. they don't mention that he was already in the guiness book of world records for charity. and now they say the estate does it better, and they are wrong, cus the charity portion hasn't even been reactivated yet, since MJ died.. they act like he's the only one who ever spent money..and they treat it like it's a bad thing. so..the idea that the evil media is training people to think he wasn't wealthy and financially wise is not a good thing. nothing that the media does is good. it's impossible to quickly restore something bad, that quickly. so it was already perfect before he died. but apparently, there are people falling for the spin job. but if people are able to see through the media..it's a good thing.

But there are people who just don't see it. They don't see that the media was envious that MJ didn't want to work anymore, and wanted to raise his kids. they were envious that he had the financial ability to do that. and they were conspiratorial, because they refused to play his music on the radio, hoping it would bankrupt him. it's amazing how the time they stopped playing his music, and the time they started writing lies about him being financially inept, started at the same time. that's media conspiracy. naturally, the media thought that if they stopped playing his music, they could bankrupt him. they didn't count on his fans buying his music over and over again, anyway. so the media kept spreading the 'broke' lies, anyway. and unfortuantely, there are people that believe that crap.

they don't see that the media didn't want MJ to raise his kids.




but like someone said, the media is trying to rewrite history, make MJ look bad in it, then make him disappear from it. and that is nothing new.

and now they're adding to their sack of lies by lying about Tmez. they act like they know the reason for the overlooked unpaid bill, which was paid quickly. they don't know the reason. and overlooking something, that both Tmez and managers acknowledged was overlooked on both ends, does not denote a financial empire in trouble. rich people overlook one small thing often, and they're not accused of being poor. but Michael is accused of being poor over it. the rest of it is hyped up frivolous lies that Tmez spoke of.
 
Last edited:
The BBC are reporting this as well. Michael's estate has made a phenomenal amount since he passed and is a testament to his legacy. His legacy will always be strong and continue forever, and the money made benefits his wonderful children and charities.
 
cheeky smiley again? lol. no..we're not off topic.

and...how did that last line appear mysteriously in my quote?

maybe since YOU decided to finish my sentence...you knew we were on topic, because that human nature has everything to do with this media campaign, aimed at Michael's financial image, while he was living.

so why do YOU believe it is a deep conviction, AllForLove?

because now, i believe we're getting somewhere. this whole issue is part of a broad topic. but saying it's off topic, is convenient, because it keeps it from going to a place that people might not want to go to. because it might be embarrassing...to say the least.

so yeah..i'm VERY interested in what you mean by 'deep conviction'. unless, somehow we won't be allowed to talk about it. or unless no one wants to talk about it for some reason.

so you have me curious, AllForLove....what is the 'deep conviction'? and why did you attribute me to having said that, in the quote box, when it was you who said it? and how did you manage to put that sentence in the quote box?

but first..what is the 'deep conviction'? it's worth me asking several times.


Waow :eek: !!! I certainly did not finish your sentences, the blue ones were my replies to your questions (to write inside the quote box I just clicked inside) !! And I told that we were out off topic because we were talking about human nature and not about the topic who is Michael's financials states -
But to reply, I would told that the deep conviction is difficult to explain in only few words - but according to me, it's a feeling inside who told you it's true or it's wrong, and you believe very hard that you hold the truth.
 
Last edited:
The BBC are reporting this as well. Michael's estate has made a phenomenal amount since he passed and is a testament to his legacy. His legacy will always be strong and continue forever, and the money made benefits his wonderful children and charities.
yeah i heard this on five live news was gonne turn the radio off as i dont like hearing things about mj but when it mentioned the estate i left it on to see what it was.
 
Because of all accounts, when MJ was living, he was never recognized to have assets over a billion.
who would recognise him when they were saying he was broke for years goes against the agenda lol.mj never let his private business go public to ppl such as forbes court documents from 07 showed him to be worth 1.7 billion. and if u do research on the sony/atv you will see what that is worth on its own b4 u add on mijac etc

If MJ was a billionare, there never would have been an auction for MJ's personal items, only to be called off once MJ secured a big payday for the London concerts.
thats really a ridiculous statement to make firstly the concerts were agreed apon long b4 the auction and do u realise how much the auction would have made him.they reported to sell upto something like 10 mill. that would make no difference what so ever to any debt!

and being a billionaire has nothing to do with the deal he did with the ranch. its well documented mj was cash poor until he refinanced in or around 07. doesnt mean you arent asset rich. the ranch deal was an excellent deal the place was costing him money. yet he didnt want to sell it. barrack offered him a deal where he would buy out a % of the ranch including the debt that was on it for x amount of $ .barrack would then put money into the ranch for whatever means he and mj agreed apon.and the two would make money off the ranch by either turing it into something or doing it up and then selling it on. considering the deal mj did with him it was presumed they would turn the ranch into some sort of business venture and collect the profits. yet instead you think it would have been better for mj to leave the place rotting and costing him money rather than use the place to make $ with hardly any outlay from mj at all. infact he gets a lump sum from barack for the privilage.
 
Last edited:
nd now they're adding to their sack of lies by lying about Tmez. they act like they know the reason for the overlooked unpaid bill, which was paid quickly. they don't know the reason. and overlooking something, that both Tmez and managers acknowledged was overlooked on both ends, does not denote a financial empire in trouble. rich people overlook one small thing often, and they're not accused of being poor. but Michael is accused of being poor over it. the rest of it is hyped up frivolous lies that Tmez spoke of.
and we all know who was running mjs estate after the trial. !
 
anyway like it maters what mj has made. i wish he were dirt broke if only he were here now. more money moreleaches sourrounding the kids in the years to come. thank bleep mj set the trust up the way he did so all the leaches will be gone or on their way by the time they get complete control
 
Back
Top