Latest on MJJC

Michael jackson's debt is paid off

the media never had the correct amount of the debt....and i am sure Michael has been paying on his loan for a while...so I have no doubt that Michael's debts have been paid..
 
MJ1814 said:
Some of you should would make a damn good accountant. :mellow: :lol:
Click to expand...

I am one

smooth_criminal05 said:
That's not true. Nobody would bother making movies at all if that was the case. In fact theaters admit they get very little profit from ticket sales, most lose money. The real money comes from food and beverage sales plus advertising. If theater owners took 50% of all box office receipts, then the companies would never make movies since there would be no financial motive to do so. Out of that $250 million, only a fraction would go the theater chains. The estate will still end up with close to $100 million in revenue. They expected the movie to do around the quarter billion, and would not have ventured into it knowing they would only pocket a mere 10-20 million.
Click to expand...

Here are some facts:
The box office number that is reported for a film is the total amount of money people have paid to see a film. This, however, is not how much money the studio accrues for a film. The reason this is the case is that studios have agreements with exhibitors - AKA your local cinema - when it comes to showing films. These agreements outline how the revenue generated by the film will be split between the studio and the exhibitor. Generally, the opening weekend revenue is split at an 80/20 ratio with the studio receiving 80% of the total gates. For their participation, the exhibitors receive their 20%, as well as all the revenue generated from concession sales. As the film’s run continues, the split changes in favor of the exhibitor until it reaches 50/50. This is only a general agreement and is not a standard for all releases. Each release can have its own agreement, with the 80/20 split being the most common. One of the exceptions to this rule was Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace; the agreement there had the studio receiving 100% of the gates for the first two weeks of release. So while every film is different, considerable variances can be considered the exceptions.
Click to expand...
So based on FACTS, the movie theaters do get a big chunk of that 240M$.

Another good read: http://www.seancast.com/2009/11/movies-theaters-money-myth/
 
Saw this last night and I'm elated!

I hope the kids DO work when they're older....continuing their fathers dream of helping the sick and needy children of the world. The returns they'll see from that is worth more than anything.
 
Sirena said:
This is what kills me - he woulda done this regardless. The O2 concerts was a 500 million venture for him.- in London alone. Kenny Ortega said MJ wanted the show to go to India, Africa, Japan, then lastly the USA..
Click to expand...

Exactly, would have been paid of at this time anyway if Michael was alive - Michael would be on top of the world at this point, the frustration is incredible.
 
Bottom line, it's been publically said that debts are paid off which means the press can stop with the lavish spending, big debt B.S. The estate was bringing in money before TII was released. Remember, the digital downloads, CDs bought, DVD's purchased right after his death? The sad thing is that he is not here to see or enjoy the fruits of his labor. Keep it in perspective
 
The debts would have been cleared anyway with the tour and as MJ said the debts were not as high as the press made them out to be. He could have done the tour, paid off the debts, then go into the next chapter in his life whether it was another album or film, whilst watching his children blossom into young adults. Sadly this will never happen. Prince, Paris and Blanket are the ones now who should be enjoying the fruits of their fathers labour. They were brought up wonderfully and they'll do their father proud like they always did. MJ was always so proud of his babies and this will never stop.
 
Great news!

Hope they do NOT release 6 albums in just one year!

Maybe it's 1 album and 5 singles! - that would be nice!
 
mkgenie said:
This Is It's box office result is 240 million.
let go 135 million for Sony.

that's 105 million left for MJ (90%) and AEG (10%)

and This Is It CD might have sold 2 million copies worldwide now? (best estimate?)

MJ's music royalities are 7% right?

so how can half-a-billion dollars be possible through the music CD royalties and box-office collection of the film 'This Is It'?

do some math!
Click to expand...

Yeah the half a billion thing seems way out there, but you must also add the 20 million albums sold worldwide, plus the digital sales, and merchandise. But I would not think it would be 500 million, but a high number nonetheless
 
Driver said:
Heres the video, hear Michael talk about his financial situation himself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R6VY4RzO5g
Click to expand...

i have seen that. the first thing Michael ever said, concerning money is that he didn't want to talk about his financial situation. he said, in his words that it was 'tacky'. i'm pretty sure, he knew that whatever answer he gave about it, it would never be believed. there's all kinds of bias feeling toward him, regarding that. he was right. personally, i thought it is, at best, a controversial decision, for his money to be subject matter here..but..i know better than to think people aren't going to want to talk about it. and..especially now..it does seem..'tacky'. and i feel dirty for getting caught up in talking about it. and, now, that he is gone..i feel even dirtier.
 
MJ gets a lot more than 7 % from his CD's.

He has one of the best contracts in the industry. He gets more per CD than any other artist.
 
Memefan said:
I am one



Here are some facts:
So based on FACTS, the movie theaters do get a big chunk of that 240M$.

Another good read: http://www.seancast.com/2009/11/movies-theaters-money-myth/
Click to expand...

Your facts also state each movie has it's own agreement. I think given the special reasons behind THIS IS IT, box offices would not be stealing 50% of the revenue. Sony would have never agreed. That's saying if a movie like 2012 that costed 200 million to produce... takes in 600 million globally. Your saying the theater takes 300 million...pfft not true at all. I guarantee when all is said and done the estate will earn big bucks from this movie release. Just wait and see.
 
Ramona122003 said:
My dad got a business degree and we talk alot, so I picked up a thing or two. Also, with recent events here in the US I think everyone here picked up some basic business information.

I am no means an expect in any of this, but I did learn a thing or two.
Click to expand...
Memefan said:
I am one
Click to expand...

My mother is an accountant as well, and I've tried to learn a few things here and there. But it's just not my cup of tea. I hate math, which is the primary cause of me not getting it. I stick to other subjects that I can understand. :sleep:
 
lilsusie said:
Something I dont understand. If MJ's debt in life, why didn't he sell his stakes in Sony? It would have cleared him of debts with over us200million plus in cash excess. Also, why didn't he just sell Neverland instead of selling it the company he co-owned?
Click to expand...


The catalogs were never meant to be sold, Michael said. He was a h*ck of a businessman. And like a smart businessman, he wisely held on to his most valuable assets, the catalogs and Neverland.
All these good people surrounding him were after his assets. The whole thing is a setup. Now who has set up who, time will show.
 
the media is just trying to spin the story so ppl don't realize that MJ never was in financial trouble and they have been lying and twisting stories all along. Indeed with his concerts he would have made much more money than now. He was never in debt, he just had a cash flow problem that would have resolved itself even if he didn't do the concerts. But anyway, I say HAHA stupid media, for always having it wrong!

I study communication science and at first I wanted to make a newspaper with only good and accurate news, but now I have moved away from that direction (press, news media) altogether because I am just so disgusted by it.
 
Maria MJ said:
The catalogs were never meant to be sold, Michael said. He was a h*ck of a businessman. And like a smart businessman, he wisely held on to his most valuable assets, the catalogs and Neverland.
All these good people surrounding him were after his assets. The whole thing is a setup. Now who has set up who, time will show.
Click to expand...


ur right...they're not good people.
 
he did have second thoughts about selling it there were times when he couldn't take the pressure and burden that came with it he was a good businessman but he was human too
 
Michael always had huge earning power and he chose not to use it for years, I'm sure that devoting his time to his children rather than his career has given them more than some kids get in a long life with a parent.

The people who salivate over his cash flow fail to recognise how much wealthier he could have been if he had not been so generous.
 
Hess said:
MJ gets a lot more than 7 % from his CD's.

He has one of the best contracts in the industry. He gets more per CD than any other artist.
Click to expand...

That's true, can't remember exactly but it's either 30 or 40%. It's way up there.

6 CD's next year...? What the...that's gotta be made up. That would just be ridiculous.
 
StaceyMJ said:
That's true, can't remember exactly but it's either 30 or 40%. It's way up there.

6 CD's next year...? What the...that's gotta be made up. That would just be ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I think Michael got the equal share with sony. Michael had 50% of all his cd's net earnings, and sony got the rest 50%. after 04, Michael owned 100% of his new songs. am I wrong?

Did estate also get the share of O2 exhibition. i think this should be a lot of money too.
 
loveforever said:
I think Michael got the equal share with sony. Michael had 50% of all his cd's net earnings, and sony got the rest 50%. after 04, Michael owned 100% of his new songs. am I wrong?

Did estate also get the share of O2 exhibition. i think this should be a lot of money too.
Click to expand...

Yeah you're probably right, that information I said was from a long time ago. I'm pretty sure he owned the newer songs, it's been said anyway.
The estate approved the exhibition so they'll be earning from that as well.
 
That's true, can't remember exactly but it's either 30 or 40%. It's way up there.
Click to expand...
think its around 30% remember reading a intresting article back in the king mag days during the histroy era where his contract was talked about, think the guy who wrote it is a member here

Michael owned 100% of his new songs. am I wrong?
Click to expand...
yeah thats right. his contract with sony ended in 03 so any songs after that are owned 100% by the estate

yeah they get a share of the exhibition aswell
 
elusive moonwalker said:
think its around 30% remember reading a intresting article back in the king mag days during the histroy era where his contract was talked about, think the guy who wrote it is a member here
Click to expand...

Yeah, 30% sounded about right to me too.
 
Actually, Michael had one of the best deals with Sony ever, and it is hard to understand exactly why he had such a problem with Sony when he did. It seems it was more of a personal issue with a certain person at Sony and not with Sony itself but thats my opinion.

Michael Jackson made gabs of money quickly and spent it just as fast. Neverland was expensive to build and operate and his lifestyle was very extravagant. Once the accusations came this is where I believe he ran into problems because it took an emotional tole on him and I think he had a hard time focusing on things, which I believe only makes him human.

He obviously didn't have the same amount of incoming cash and he still lived a more lavish lifestyle. I believe he could have liquidated many things and raised cash but he also liked living that lifestyle. His last major work, Invincible, was not promoted by himself or Sony. There were argumnents from both Sony and MJ regarding who was at fault but I believe it to be both Michael and Sony at fault. He didn't do any interviews, he didn't want to tour, he didn't want to promote himself and they were angry at him in my opinion and just flung their hands in the air.

I think Michael may have taken the success of this album and the emotional turmoil he was going through to heart meaning that even his 'fans' were not supporting him as they had been and it hurt him. I was overjoyed that he decided to do the concerts and I'm glad it was received by the fans as well as it was. I am SURE this made him feel on top of the world. I believe his reason for doing the concerts had as much to do with fattening his bank account as his popularity and his own personal fulfillment.

I can not imagine how devastated he must have felt after all this negativity affected his life and I'm glad he had these concerts and all the attention which showed him that people DID care about him and wanted him and valued his work. At least he knew that and he was back to living a less stressfully financial life in the last months of his life.

As far as Neverland being sold, thats a whole other thread if you ask me. Many opinions on that one.
 
There were argumnents from both Sony and MJ regarding who was at fault but I believe it to be both Michael and Sony at fault. He didn't do any interviews, he didn't want to tour, he didn't want to promote himself and they were angry at him in my opinion and just flung their hands in the air.

I think Michael may have taken the success of this album and the emotional turmoil he was going through to heart meaning that even his 'fans' were not supporting him as they had been and it hurt him.
Click to expand...
its a different thread but you need to read up on what happened back then cause your opinion is way off

Actually, Michael had one of the best deals with Sony ever, and it is hard to understand exactly why he had such a problem with Sony when he did. It seems it was more of a personal issue with a certain person at Sony and not with Sony itself but thats my opinion
Click to expand...
his issue was with mottola as an individual not sony. he said that many times. he was very close to the owners in japan and that led to mottola being sacked after the mess with vince
 
Sirena said:
This is what kills me - he woulda done this regardless. The O2 concerts was a 500 million venture for him.- in London alone. Kenny Ortega said MJ wanted the show to go to India, Africa, Japan, then lastly the USA.

I hate it when SOME family members say that he was worth more dead than alive - they need to STOP SAYING THAT. Arrgh!

Anyway, I am happy that the estate is a-ok, may God keep it growing, and may Michael's wishes be respected according to his will.
Click to expand...

The family members are correct. AEG had fronted Michael some money, i.e. paying the settlement in the lawsuit brought by the Bahrainian prince, and other things. Michael had a lot of debt, including to AEG. He would have been doing well financially if he'd completed the concerts. If he had not completed them, he would have been in serious financial trouble. There remains legitimate concern as to whether or not he was in good enough physical shape to sustain the effort of fifty concerts. The pressure on him was enormous. AEG execs have said the insurance physical showed that he was in great shape. Those same execs have also said they never SAW the results of the physical, so which is it?

If he'd cancelled, for whatever reasons, there would have been a massive debt to repay, and there most likely would have been no TII movie. The public (NON-fan) interest in the movie was largely because Michael died. The interest, by the (NON-fan) public, in "Michael-products" now is largely because he died . . . .

We will never know, now, if he could have sustained the effort of the concerts, to say nothing of a world-tour. He had not performed in over a decade. One would have thought he'd test the water (and his stamina) first? By doing, say, a set of ten concerts? And then there were fifty? But now, we'll never know. . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top