Latest on MJJC

MJ's a "businessman"?

troubleman84 said:
LOL, no prob, Shamonee.

Rasta, I may be preaching to the choir but MJ is getting more off from his deals with Epic than he is from Motown. Plus let it be reminded that the original lawsuit (not the 2003 one) was filed by Joseph Jackson since the J5 didn't get much money off the hits they made w/Motown during the Berry Gordy era of the label. Michael and Universal had to settle on a good payment in 2003 but whatever was agreed upon is speculation.
Click to expand...

well, Michael is the one that did the lawsuit against Universal/Motown in 2003 and not Joe.. ... .the last thing we heard about the case was that there was to be a hearing in May 2005..............(yes during the other trial).........but nothing was ever mentioned about it since..

If Universal did the settlement.. and paid up.............great.. and whatever was paid.. couldn't be no chum change.. whatever it was...and I am not really debating about whether Epic gave him more than Motown..

just saying.. he is "getting paid".. by not only from Sony.. but also Motown on past work... he didn't even write.

I just wanted folks to know that... his Motown work.. could still be making him $$$$$$$$$$$$....whatever the amount...

and if he got the masters tooooooooooooooooo... that amount will increase with future re-releases..
 
Not being funny, but how the hell do you know so much? :shock:
 
LMAO! She probably has a degree in business. :tease:

I still say until I find proof, the Jackson 5's work is still owned by Universal, including the songs Michael, Jackie and Jermaine worked on solo.

Except for Stevie, portions of Marvin's works, Smokey Robinson's work and the copyright of The Temptations' name, everything else is in Motown's catalog. It ain't no secret that the Jackson 5 signed the same kind of contract that caused them not to own masters of anything. Any royalties they get from re-releases is just that tho. The reason the Jacksons probably don't pursue it more is because they made better investments in Epic...LIKE I SAID. :tease:
 
troubleman84 said:
LMAO! She probably has a degree in business. :tease:

I still say until I find proof, the Jackson 5's work is still owned by Universal, including the songs Michael, Jackie and Jermaine worked on solo.

Except for Stevie, portions of Marvin's works, Smokey Robinson's work and the copyright of The Temptations' name, everything else is in Motown's catalog. It ain't no secret that the Jackson 5 signed the same kind of contract that caused them not to own masters of anything. Any royalties they get from re-releases is just that tho. The reason the Jacksons probably don't pursue it more is because they made better investments in Epic...LIKE I SAID. :tease:
Click to expand...
maybe my English isn't too good. becuz I swear that is what I copied on this thread about that lawsuit...that the royalties is for re-releases of songs they did at Motown from 1969-1976...and also any J5 imagines or likeless on TV or Radio, Ads, etc.... and also from that 2003 lawsuit .. he wanted the masters of all J5 recordings..

never said they are getting royalties as songwriters on those Motown songs..

Royalties can also mean:
a right of jurisdiction granted to an individual or corporation by a sovereign
Click to expand...
 
I remember earlier this year hearing about the other Jackson brothers suing MJ for "royalties from the Jackson 5". I just remembered having the :blink: face. Like "shouldn't they be asking Universal for that?!" :lol: I don't even know how true that article was. I forgot how much money it was, wasn't it like 800K or something? LOL
 
Moneys coming some where that has not been made public. I don't believe he could be living the life style he continues to live. The reasom I believe his money is coming from some where else is i think of the big money he and sony borrow from banks micks responsible for his half of the catologue. By the time he pays his share where is his money from the catologue. We still have yet to see him make a new album that is costing him money now to record pluse he just settled again with his money. This he is not a good business thing is crap to me I had no idea he was living the life like this untile bashir.
 
He earned like a billion in his fortune but he isn't worth a billion due to the lawsuits and frivolous spending habits. It's hard to speculate where the money's even coming from. You'd think royalties will be enough for him to continue to live how he's living. Time will tell if MJ is actually playing with them clowns when they go on that "Mike is broke" crap.
 
troubleman84 said:
He earned like a billion in his fortune but he isn't worth a billion due to the lawsuits and frivolous spending habits. It's hard to speculate where the money's even coming from. You'd think royalties will be enough for him to continue to live how he's living. Time will tell if MJ is actually playing with them clowns when they go on that "Mike is broke" crap.
Click to expand...

lol...well my bro..ur statement is somn i don't get. lol

it's not like MJ is gunna get free money from someone who says 'hey Mike, spend frivolously!'

so..we don't know how much he's worth..north or south of a billion..and it's better that way. but i can see a lot of people reeeeeeaalllllly seem to need to know. lol. but i feel ur last sentence about the clowns. lol

but..it looks as if we all end up with questions more than answers..and again..that's better..except for the fact that this site will always be prickly because of it :lol:
 
Yep, we all don't know the full truth. It hurts trying to figure it out. LMAO! Plus we're as bad as people wondering if he's really broke now. :lol:
 
Rasta Pasta said:
also don't count out J5 royalties.. and I am going to use this excerpt on the Universal/Motown lawsuit to back it up:
Click to expand...

I didn't count J5 royalties, just the ones of Michael's solo albums with Epic since Off The Wall, to which Michael now owns all the masters. I pointed out that Sony still owns the masters to The Jacksons albums.

As far as I'm aware, Motown gave their artists quite a low royalty rate. I know artists like Marvin Gaye and Stevie Wonder had to really fight to write their own songs. I presume one of the reasons was that Motown would have to pay them more royalties for songwriting.

troubleman84 said:
He earned like a billion in his fortune but he isn't worth a billion due to the lawsuits and frivolous spending habits. It's hard to speculate where the money's even coming from. You'd think royalties will be enough for him to continue to live how he's living. Time will tell if MJ is actually playing with them clowns when they go on that "Mike is broke" crap.
Click to expand...

That's based on media speculation not fact, we don't know to what extent the legal issues are around the lawsuits Michael has had. Most of them have been settled out of court, and the ones that have been settled in court by a judge haven't been awarded the full amount of what the wanted to sue Michael for.

Michael doesn't just live or royalties of his own music, but also from money generated from his music publishing companies. Songs played on adverts, sales on other artists/bands albums etc, radio air play etc. If Michael's financial situation was so dire, he would be put in a position where he had no choice but to tour, which would generate a huge amount of money for him.

troubleman84 said:
Yep, we all don't know the full truth. It hurts trying to figure it out. LMAO! Plus we're as bad as people wondering if he's really broke now. :lol:
Click to expand...
Yes, that's a very good point !
 
Last edited:
one thing a person can do to feel more comfy on behalf of MJ is just pick one tiny example of MJ generating revenue. just one. i listen to the radio a lot, and i always hear a commercial for a center that sells computers. the center is called 'Office Depot'. i hear that commercial a LOT. and they ALWAYS use the song 'taking care of business'. that's in MJ's catalogue.

any one person is set for life if they can just get that one commercial, with that one song in their catalogue to play as often as it does..and have nothing else in their catalogue. but that's just one of many in MJ's catalogue.
 
Rasta Pasta said:
yeah, he knows a little about business...

remember the Pepsi contract
remember the deal with MSG's TV performance
remember the purchase on the Beatles catalog
remember the merging of ATV with Sony
remember convincing Sly Stone to sell his entire catalog to Michael under Mijac Publishing
remember purchasing Acuff-Rose catalog
remember purchasing Famous music
remember purchasing Sycamore Farms for $38 mil and making into Neverland which funded million of under priveledged and sick kids and families to enjoy his paradise
remember him breaking with Motown
remember him getting and still having the biggest record deal in history.. even though its ended
no other artist has negotiated such a deal
remember .. remember/...

any business purchase can tell you... to be sucessful is not to make the right decision all the time..
but to get up.. stay up and keep looking up...

you cant be successful without ever failing.............
Click to expand...


WOOOOOO! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Thank ya!
 
It''s funny,how some seem to find pleasure in the reports that MJ is "broke".
A newsanchor man on a local Chicago tv station was rubbing his hands like a fly when he was reporting he was allegedly going broke. It seems that the haters want him to be unsucessful at every single aspect of his life. The media and others try to denegrate him any which way they can, hardly mentioning anything positive
like being nominated for the nobel prize(yet Bono was mentioned and MJ is immensely more popular) etc.

It's also funny how you don't get so many reports about Trunp being sued by his lenders for a new highrise
that he built in Chicago and can't fill up with occupants. Trump has been bankrupt at least once and he is considered a sucessful businessman, yet Mike has many of his cases against him thrown out and has never filed and people try to make him out to be a dummy who had a lot of money and didn't know how to handle it.

And like it has been mentioned in this thread, we don't know everything Mike has been doing, is doing and will
do, we are not in his presence. We don't know jack except for what the media tells us and for the most part it's what they want to tell us.Basically, the news is what they say it is.

Really though, to mitigate a person's accomplishments is bad form. Envy is disgusting.
Like one comedian said: Don't hate, congratulate; appreciate; imitate; celebrate.

And if he is f-ing up financially, why not just hope for the best and....live your life aaaaay aaaaay aaaaaay!
 
ddmff said:
It''s funny,how some seem to find pleasure in the reports that MJ is "broke".
A newsanchor man on a local Chicago tv station was rubbing his hands like a fly when he was reporting he was allegedly going broke. It seems that the haters want him to be unsucessful at every single aspect of his life. The media and others try to denegrate him any which way they can, hardly mentioning anything positive
like being nominated for the nobel prize(yet Bono was mentioned and MJ is immensely more popular) etc.

It's also funny how you don't get so many reports about Trunp being sued by his lenders for a new highrise
that he built in Chicago and can't fill up with occupants. Trump has been bankrupt at least once and he is considered a sucessful businessman, yet Mike has many of his cases against him thrown out and has never filed and people try to make him out to be a dummy who had a lot of money and didn't know how to handle it.

And like it has been mentioned in this thread, we don't know everything Mike has been doing, is doing and will
do, we are not in his presence. We don't know jack except for what the media tells us and for the most part it's what they want to tell us.Basically, the news is what they say it is.

Really though, to mitigate a person's accomplishments is bad form. Envy is disgusting.
Like one comedian said: Don't hate, congratulate; appreciate; imitate; celebrate.

And if he is f-ing up financially, why not just hope for the best and....live your life aaaaay aaaaay aaaaaay!
Click to expand...

and that's the proof that he is successful..the part i emboldened. u don't take pleasure unless u know he's better(and doing wayyy better than u, and wayy better than u could ever imagine.. u r on point about envy.

envy is the ultimate proof of MJ's massive success on all points of his life.

ewwww....the guy was rubbing his hands?? that says it all.
 
Last edited:
seany said:
Michael cannot even hire an appropriate spokesperson nevermind manage his accounts and stay on top of his finances of recent years. It's all about prioritising ones wealth. It's not okay to be 'in the red' in buisiness for a prolonged period, you need to be acumulating surplice and I believe that he isn't in that position anymore for a variety of different reasons, though I am sure it's his choice. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he declared bankruptcy soon or one of the Jackson brothers, people who I'd also say are not very suavé buisness men either.
Click to expand...

Okay, look. Michael Jackson has been sued up the waa zoo since that trial. Peeps were mishandling his money and he even probably didn't fully know what was going on with his stash.

When you are being sued like that, you can't hire all of the people necessary to represent you in the music end of the business. At least 2-3 folks have had a claim on his name. One tried to tie him up in a non-existant recording contract. When you are on trial for your life and freedom, other things fall to the wayside.

It takes a LONG time to get thru all of the litigation that resulted in his life and career being placed on hold during that criminal trial. I believe that he is finally, just now, seeing some light at the end of the tunnel.

And while it may seem like an eternity for fans, that is just how the wheels of justice and litigation roll. Perhaps MJ wants to do all of these things that you mentioned, but he can't do that if he is trying to untangle his finances and settle law suits.

Obviously Michael isn't broke.
 
seany said:
Don't take it personally. I think he isn't as good a business man as he once was or at least used to be, just like I don't believe his farts smell of pot popourri. He can't even pull off the release of charity singles anymore.

Okay so he made what, £29 million last year in revenue. Only a few quid more than me :D, however my point is this, last year Elvis Presley made $52 million in the past year and he's dead. If MJ was so great then he'd be making this type of money now whilst he's alive like many big names such as Madonna, Justin Timberlake (earning $44 million in 2007), P.Diddy, Jay-Z, Sir Paul McCartney etc, as Michael Jackon is better than all of them IMO.

However, I just feel he's lost his touch a bit on the business side that's all and that most of his money he makes nowadays is from deals he clenched back in the day and not of late, most of which I'd believe are music releated only.

So, if this is a question of whether MJ is a business man or not, he most certinaly is, but if it's a question of whether he's a good business man or not, I'd say not anymore, though there's always room for improvement.

Seány. :cheeky:
Click to expand...

Seany, I think the main difference between MJ the businessman back in the day and MJ of today is that he has had 2 major criminal allegations thrown at him that has stifled his career. Yet no matter how enterprising the Jay-Z's of the world are, I doubt any other single recording artist owns a substantial lot of songs.

I don't think that MJ is a bad businessman, but he is not a hands on businessman and in this day and age, you have to be.
 
I was just wondering ... does anyone on this website have or ever the kind of wealth that MJ has or used up(allegedly) to be able to comment about what he is doing or if he's making the wrong decisionsor not ? He is thousands of miles away from most of us and his financial dealings even further.
For all anybody knows he may have amassed wealth under an assumed name.

I refuse to be mind f*$%ed by the media. The news is what they say it is.
 
I think thread is about MJ being a businessman. Not discussing his finances. Let's just end this by saying that MJ is very well off and not to worry.

Let's get back on topic or we will have to close this down. Thanks.
 
OK, to get it back to topic. I do think he is an alright businessman. Obviously he's agreed in making new deals for profit. His only real business was in music publishing and it paid off tremendously. That's really all he needed to do. Besides even MJ supposedly said himself he's not THAT good of a businessman. :lol:
 
troubleman84 said:
OK, to get it back to topic. I do think he is an alright businessman. Obviously he's agreed in making new deals for profit. His only real business was in music publishing and it paid off tremendously. That's really all he needed to do. Besides even MJ supposedly said himself he's not THAT good of a businessman. :lol:
Click to expand...


He also seems to be modest person with very high standards, in his mind he will probably never be as good as he thinks he should be. Thus, a good businessman.
 
what i don't see is why people don't see how lacking in wisdom the media really looks. the only thing you have to know, even if ur two years old, is...a business' calling card is how long they last. everywhere u look, businesses are going out of business...and people are coming and going out of the music business, everyday, and u never hear about it, prior. but MJ's been in business for nearly FIFTY years, and ur always hearing bad stuff about him. something tells me, that wisdom is lacking somewhere. and that's why i'm glad my tv broke.
 
Its funny how nobody is answering my question about the source of the amount MJ supposedly made last year. You guys should realy stop making up stuff. I'm too lazy to go through the thread and pick out the culprits,lol!
 
^ LMAO! No one knows. All of us are just running off our mouths on information we don't even know if it's true. :lol: You have Rasta printing the info about MJ's "business deals" every day on the news and mentionings page, lol. :lol:
 
mello1 said:
Let's just end this by saying that MJ is very well off and not to worry.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I think.

virginia_woolf said:
Really? Why?
Click to expand...

I'm no expert about Madonna's finance's and business's, but she had her own problems with her music label Warner Music Group/ Time Warner that hardly received any media attention. Madonna and Co filed a lawsuit against Warner for poor book keeping and losing them millions of pounds. Warner counter sued, claiming Maverick lost them over $100 million in ten years. The case was resolved and Madonna was bought out by Warner exiling her completely from Maverick which is now owned 100% by Warner. I presume this is one of the reasons Madonna has left Waner for Live Nation.

Although Michael has had his problems with Sony, his business ventures with them haven't lost Sony money. In fact it's helped make Sony a bigger and more powerful company in music publishing.
 
Last edited:
Lol is this still going on? Thanks guys, these posts have been really interesting to read - I love talking about MJ lol!
 
benscarr said:
That's exactly what I think.



I'm no expert about Madonna's finance's and business's, but she had her own problems with her music label Warner Music Group/ Time Warner that hardly received any media attention. Madonna and Co filed a lawsuit against Warner for poor book keeping and losing them millions of pounds. Warner counter sued, claiming Maverick lost them over $100 million in ten years. The case was resolved and Madonna was bought out by Warner exiling her completely from Maverick which is now owned 100% by Warner. I presume this is one of the reasons Madonna has left Waner for Live Nation.

Although Michael has had his problems with Sony, his business ventures with them haven't lost Sony money. In fact it's helped make Sony a bigger and more powerful company in music publishing.
Click to expand...

yes...the biggest telltale sign of how good the artist is, is if the artist's label still wants to associate with them. well..Legacy records is Sony..and they're still associating with MJ. a ton of other big artists were abandoned by their labels. and we NEVER heard about it, until AFTER it happened. MJ is the ONLY artist that EVER got negative media publicity, DURING his tenure.
 
vncwilliam said:
yes...the biggest telltale sign of how good the artist is, is if the artist's label still wants to associate with them. well..Legacy records is Sony..and they're still associating with MJ. a ton of other big artists were abandoned by their labels. and we NEVER heard about it, until AFTER it happened. MJ is the ONLY artist that EVER got negative media publicity, DURING his tenure.
Click to expand...

The thing is that with other artists such as Madonna any move they make to another label is seen as a positive one, even though their reasons for leaving their labels is a negative one. Madonna's move to Live Nation is seen as a cutting edge move because music labels are music sales are seen as being on the wane, and part her contract with Live Nation is based on making profit from her tours. Which is a very risky move for an 50yr old artist, who has signed a 10yr $120 million deal which won't come in to effect until next year. She may not release her first solo album with them until she is 51 or 52 years old, and the why Prince see's recording contracts makes are a slave to a music label. I have no idea if Madonna gets to own her masters for her new albums on Live Nation, but her music sales are past their peak and as most artist age her career will be mainly based on tours. So she could end up in a position like Elvis where she has to tour to make money and make profit for her music label.

I did read in the mid 1990's that any money her recording artists on Maverick lose, would be taken from the profit of her own music. Her deal with Warner didn't sound like a good one, and I don't think Prince had a good deal with them otherwise he wouldn't have make such a public scene and writing slave on his face. Even though leaving Warner in 1995 killed Prince's career as a major force the charts and music sales, it has turned out to be the smartest move he ever made business and profit wise. In recent years Prince has been the highest earning artist in music, and he has made all of the profit not music labels, who only give their artists a percentage of their sales

Some one of Madonna's stature in music should not be bound to a recording contract for 10yrs. I presume she has the money to be an independent artist and just use a major label like Sony (whom David Bowie and Prince use to market their albums from their own label) to promote her albums. From what Michael said at the Killer Thriller Party in 2002 when talking about Sony and saying that he made them $billions over the years. I presume Michael will do what Bowie and Prince have done, and set up his own label where Michael is the only artists and use Sony/Legacy to promote his future albums. Sony actually seems quite promoting major artists albums who have their own labels. And if Michael does do this it will be a very smart move.
 
^ Yeah Prince did quite well for himself after leaving Warner Bros. See he already built NPG Records in 1993 and he marketed that label to release his records. Whether WB was down to distribute them was anybody's guess but it's clear they didn't like his choices, therefore he left and made many great business choices with other labels where he retained control of the recordings and masters and got big money of the thing regardless of how the projects went. With Madonna, though, it's a catch 22 thing, either she's doing real well and is doing smart business decisions, or she done forgot the whole meter of the matter and carelessly signed her rights away to a point where she becomes just another cog in the system after years of being this "independent, smart, business decisions-making woman". Michael CAN benefit with another label of his own creation and all Sony BMG can do is distribute it, he can make a great deal that will not be used as collateral but can actually go to his savings account and he wouldn't worry about losing any of its stock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top