Under what circumstrance would anyone be able to wrest that catalogue from his possession: it is his chief source of income.
By putting him in a position whereby he would have no choice but to option it's use or sell it outright, lest creditors come and claim it as legally theirs.
And how likely is that?
Actually it is very likely. Micheal has repeatedly used the catalog as collateral for loans and to get Sony to spend more money to try and improve his (relatively) lackluster album sales. His last record sold less than 2 million records, and more than $30million was spent promoting it. In order to induce Sony to do this, Jackson basically let them put a lein on the Beatles catalog. Moreover, in terms of precedent for such a sale, Jackson already sold half of the catalog to Sony in 1991 and additionally, Sony has the sole administration rights to the ENTIRE catalog, an important indicator of who really "controls" the songs in a practical sense. With MJ spending extravagently, plus legal bills, plus outstanding judgments against him from cancelled tours and a huge mulit-million dollarr outstanding loan that used his share of the ATV catalog as collateral, and a tendency to spend unreasonably and thus remain unrecouped on multi-platinun albums, it seems likely that he will sell it some time in the near future, because it is his most valuable remaining asset. If you're going to be a prick, you should at least know what you're talking about dude.
Fine.
Birdman is making it sound like the trial is a concerted effort to wrest the catalogue from Michael.
Under what circumstrance would anyone be able to wrest that catalogue from his possession: it is his chief source of income.
By putting him in a position whereby he would have no choice but to option it's use or sell it outright, lest creditors come and claim it as legally theirs.
And how likely is that?
Actually it is very likely. Micheal has repeatedly used the catalog as collateral for loans and to get Sony to spend more money to try and improve his (relatively) lackluster album sales. His last record sold less than 2 million records, and more than $30million was spent promoting it. In order to induce Sony to do this, Jackson basically let them put a lein on the Beatles catalog. Moreover, in terms of precedent for such a sale, Jackson already sold half of the catalog to Sony in 1991 and additionally, Sony has the sole administration rights to the ENTIRE catalog, an important indicator of who really "controls" the songs in a practical sense. With MJ spending extravagently, plus legal bills, plus outstanding judgments against him from cancelled tours and a huge mulit-million dollarr outstanding loan that used his share of the ATV catalog as collateral, and a tendency to spend unreasonably and thus remain unrecouped on multi-platinun albums, it seems likely that he will sell it some time in the near future, because it is his most valuable remaining asset. If you're going to be a prick, you should at least know what you're talking about dude.
Fine.
Birdman is making it sound like the trial is a concerted effort to wrest the catalogue from Michael.
No, if you go back and READ, I said that Michael himself is putting this out there as a reason for his troubles, that it's all part of some vast conspiracy. As I said, I think he has a hard time believing that HE may be responsible for all this himself. But I am sure there are plenty of people happy that he has put his assets(like the Beatles catalog) in such a bad position.
I'd just ike to jump in and say these two things suck equally: IMG SRC=http://www.lisarein.com/djspooky.gif>IMG SRC=http://www.new-video.de/co/ronkreuz.jpg HEIGHT=240> Carry on.
I'd just ike to jump in and say these two things suck equally: IMG SRC=http://www.lisarein.com/djspooky.gif>IMG SRC=http://www.new-video.de/co/ronkreuz.jpg HEIGHT=240> Carry on.
Actually, if you get right down to it, I'd take Captain Ron over DJ Spooky any day of the week.
I'd just ike to jump in and say these two things suck equally: IMG SRC=http://www.lisarein.com/djspooky.gif>IMG SRC=http://www.new-video.de/co/ronkreuz.jpg HEIGHT=240> Carry on.
Actually, if you get right down to it, I'd take Captain Ron over DJ Spooky any day of the week.
captain ron looks like crockett after a day of binging on columbian gold, w/o tubbs...
don't hate because you're ignorant. they don't call him 'that subliminal kid' for nothing
PAUL D MILLER IS SMARTER THAN ALL OF US AND WANTS YOU TO KNOW IT
I saw him speak and "perform" at Yale a few months ago on some "Examination Of Sampling" type tour with the Negativeland guy and some lawyers and....you're absolutley right.
Oh and I'd take any Kurt Russel film over a DJ Spooky, lesser of two evils, ya know? Even a Tango & Cash/3000 Miles to Graceland/Escape from L.A. triple feature.
Under what circumstrance would anyone be able to wrest that catalogue from his possession: it is his chief source of income.
By putting him in a position whereby he would have no choice but to option it's use or sell it outright, lest creditors come and claim it as legally theirs.
And how likely is that?
Actually it is very likely. Micheal has repeatedly used the catalog as collateral for loans and to get Sony to spend more money to try and improve his (relatively) lackluster album sales. His last record sold less than 2 million records, and more than $30million was spent promoting it. In order to induce Sony to do this, Jackson basically let them put a lein on the Beatles catalog. Moreover, in terms of precedent for such a sale, Jackson already sold half of the catalog to Sony in 1991 and additionally, Sony has the sole administration rights to the ENTIRE catalog, an important indicator of who really "controls" the songs in a practical sense. With MJ spending extravagently, plus legal bills, plus outstanding judgments against him from cancelled tours and a huge mulit-million dollarr outstanding loan that used his share of the ATV catalog as collateral, and a tendency to spend unreasonably and thus remain unrecouped on multi-platinun albums, it seems likely that he will sell it some time in the near future, because it is his most valuable remaining asset. If you're going to be a prick, you should at least know what you're talking about dude.
Fine.
Birdman is making it sound like the trial is a concerted effort to wrest the catalogue from Michael.
No, if you go back and READ, I said that Michael himself is putting this out there as a reason for his troubles, that it's all part of some vast conspiracy.
As I said, I think he has a hard time believing that HE may be responsible for all this himself. But I am sure there are plenty of people happy that he has put his assets(like the Beatles catalog) in such a bad position.
Here's what you said:
"Yes. He has been quoted as sayingthat all this is an attempt to wrest controlling interest in that away from him, that there is a conspiracy afoot.
I am sure there is an attempt toget this[/b], as it surely is among his most valuable assets(moreso than his own publishing, probably)---but a conspiracy? I dunno. But I bet that Paul McCartney is probably licking his chops waiting for a 'guilty' verdict. McCartney still feels burned by Michael and for good reason."
So you don't agree with Jackson that there's a conspiracy afoot, but you are "sure [that] there's an attempt to get [the Beatles catalogue]." You even went on to say that the wheeling and dealing of rich people (who you know nothing about, whether it be personally or professionally) is a giant game of chess in that if you endgame the King of Pop, then glory be to you and your newly racked up assets.
Look, I'll agree with you that many people would like to get their hands on the Beatles catalogue, but the way in which you framed this topic makes it sound like the fall of Michael Jackson functions as a pretext for acquiring the Beatles catalogue. That's what I don't buy. OK?
Look, I'll agree with you that many people would like to get their hands on the Beatles catalogue, but the way in which you framed this topic makes it sound like the fall of Michael Jackson functions as a pretext for acquiring the Beatles catalogue. That's what I don't buy. OK?
No, I merely pointed out that the catalogue's value and place in all this is not lost on those in a position to potentially gain from it(you know, those wealthy people whom I don't know personally or professionally)and Jackson's continued problems. I don't think it holds a central place, I never framed it as such, but it sure sounds like Jackson holds it close as a handy excuse as to why he's being 'persecuted'. His legal troubles are obviously the result of his own thirst for attention, stupid admissions, years of questionable(to say the least) activities with children and a DA who is clearly trying to make his career and a hard-on for getting Jackson behind bars at all costs.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
Sure thing.
Under what circumstrance would anyone be able to wrest that catalogue from his possession: it is his chief source of income.
By putting him in a position whereby he would have no choice but to option it's use or sell it outright, lest creditors come and claim it as legally theirs.
He'd already done that himself. He spent so much money recording "Incredible" that Sony said "no mas", so he effectively mortgaged his share of the ATV catalogue as collateral in the event that "Incredible" tanked, which it did. It was then suggested by him, albeit not directly, that Sony had deliberately killed the record in order to get their hands on the Beatles catalogue. This doesn't explain why Sony hasn't called its marker in yet. All this took place long before the current charges were brought, or even before the Martin Bashir documentary was broadcast.
My girl used to work for Sony in the music publishing division, and during lunch with one of the legal cats from their NY office a few years back, she learned that Michael Jackson has been tapping Sony for unrecoupable loans for quite some time now - well over five years. Why does a guy who must have sold nearly 100m records, if not more, need to go to his label with a begging bowl?
Look, I'll agree with you that many people would like to get their hands on the Beatles catalogue, but the way in which you framed this topic makes it sound like the fall of Michael Jackson functions as a pretext for acquiring the Beatles catalogue. That's what I don't buy. OK?
No, I merely pointed out that the catalogue's value and place in all this is not lost on those in a position to potentially gain from it(you know, those wealthy people whom I don't know personally or professionally)and Jackson's continued problems. I don't think it holds a central place, I never framed it as such, but it sure sounds like Jackson holds it close as a handy excuse as to why he's being 'persecuted'. His legal troubles are obviously the result of his own thirst for attention, stupid admissions, years of questionable(to say the least) activities with children and a DA who is clearly trying to make his career and a hard-on for getting Jackson behind bars at all costs.
Why no mention of R. Kelly, anotha brotha with hits for daze and a taste for the younger things in life? Alls I'm saying is I like the R-ah no matter how many underage girls he's pissed on. I believe he can fly.
ok..im lost. Michael Jackson actually has some kind of trial going on? what did he do this time? I am guessing it has to do with Paul McCartney trying to get that Beatles catalogue? I can see why Paul is mad though..but leave Michael alone..after all the shit he's been through over the years(I think I remember he even had some kind of bullshit molestion allegation against him..but maybe I am wrong about that and just have him confused with Gary Glitter. Shit..I wouldnt even doubt if some kid claimed he molested him recently...those damn whippernappers!
ok..im lost. Michael Jackson actually has some kind of trial going on? what did he do this time? I am guessing it has to do with Paul McCartney trying to get that Beatles catalogue? I can see why Paul is mad though..but leave Michael alone..after all the shit he's been through over the years(I think I remember he even had some kind of bullshit molestion allegation against him..but maybe I am wrong about that and just have him confused with Gary Glitter. Shit..I wouldnt even doubt if some kid claimed he molested him recently...those damn whippernappers!
ok..im lost. Michael Jackson actually has some kind of trial going on? what did he do this time? I am guessing it has to do with Paul McCartney trying to get that Beatles catalogue? I can see why Paul is mad though..but leave Michael alone..after all the shit he's been through over the years(I think I remember he even had some kind of bullshit molestion allegation against him..but maybe I am wrong about that and just have him confused with Gary Glitter. Shit..I wouldnt even doubt if some kid claimed he molested him recently...those damn whippernappers!
could you imagine living your entire life in a box....i'm NOT defending Michael because he may be guilty..i'll wait to make my judgement....but since dude was like 5 years old he has had zero privacy...he has never been able to even go to fucking 7-11 alone...for 40 + years this dude has been in a cage...imagine that shit ...he's a very weird dude ..he should be..he has ZERO social skills....he's never met anyone who didn't know who he was... therefore ...technically ..he has no friends...i think this is why he finds so much joy in hangin with little kids its like hes making up for the childhood we took for granted....as far as sleeping with the boys .....NO ITS NOT RIGHT....but i think its something much different than molestation...its HIM not knowing what the big deal is ...this dude has never had to answer to the law (or any authority)since adulthood so when a parent says "yeah Mike its cool"......Michael thinks its cool....im not making any excuses for dude ...but he really is a 10 year old in a 40 year old body with alot of money and nobody to answer to
He was 7 when he first became a star, and he's blind, which is an added burdon... No, wait, that's Stevie Wonder. Didn't he turn out OK?
On the Beatles "catalog". The way I understand it the Beatles (Paul, Ringo and the widows) control the use of all the beatles recordings along with EMI. MJ owns (or owned) the publishing rights to the Nothern Song catalog, which is most of their pre-Apple recordings. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but that is how I understood it. Sony would profit more from a MJ restored to hitdom than to gaining control of the catalog it seems to me. Paul had his chances to buy the catalog but got out bid. I would hope he is man enough to understand that.
I was a big Woody Allen fan, today all his work is tainted in my eyes.
I think Chinatown is a brilliantly disturbing movie, all the more disturbing for who made it.
I hope I never see Birth Of A Nation, or anything done by that Nazi Bitch.
I enjoy listening to music in it's cultural context. For me the context of MJ's music will always include who he was, and who he has become.
Weather or not he is found guilty on current charges, I think we can all agree that we wouldn't let any child we know sleep with him, and we all know why.
if you want to listen to music or view art by " good " people have fun with your Amy Grant lp's.
I never said I want to listen to music by "good" people. I never even said I wouldn't listen to music by bad people. I did say who makes the music influences how I hear it. Thus I don't listen to Amy Grant, she's an adultress.
Weather or not he is found guilty on current charges, I think we can all agree that we wouldn't let any child we know sleep with him, and we all know why.
Dan
True indeed, while a lot of stuff has been said in this case that could be true or false, two things are indisputably true:
-Mike has admitted on TV that he finds nothing wrong with sharing his bed with children
-despite the legal and financial ramifications of sleeping with children (i.e paying off accusing families for whatever reasons to stay out of court), he continues to do so. Now, if you supposedly already got burnt twice by greedy families trying to make a buck off you, wouldn't you be at least be a little bit apprehensive about putting yourself in a similiar situation?
At the very least, his desire to have children around him supercedes the desire to keep himself out of these sticky financial/legal situations. Or does he believe that it's worth the millions of $$$ he's shelled out over the years to maintain this lifestyle? Either he's just a way too trusting and naive individual, or someone with his priorites severely mixed up.
Look, I'll agree with you that many people would like to get their hands on the Beatles catalogue, but the way in which you framed this topic makes it sound like the fall of Michael Jackson functions as a pretext for acquiring the Beatles catalogue. That's what I don't buy. OK?
No, I merely pointed out that the catalogue's value and place in all this is not lost on those in a position to potentially gain from it(you know, those wealthy people whom I don't know personally or professionally)and Jackson's continued problems. I don't think it holds a central place, I never framed it as such, but it sure sounds like Jackson holds it close as a handy excuse as to why he's being 'persecuted'. His legal troubles are obviously the result of his own thirst for attention, stupid admissions, years of questionable(to say the least) activities with children and a DA who is clearly trying to make his career and a hard-on for getting Jackson behind bars at all costs.
Will Michael Jackson Sell His Music?
Facing Huge Debts, Pop Star Might Sell Valuable Catalog
By JIM AVILA and EILEEN MURPHY
- Michael Jackson is in danger of losing much of his most valuable asset -- his catalog of other people's music, including the Beatles'.
Music analysts say he is probably no longer able to demand such huge money for tours, and his record sales are no longer in the superstar range. Jackson is now more music mogul than music performer; the bulk of his revenue is earned by royalties from songs he owns.
These include not only his own compositions, but also an extensive and very lucrative catalog of songs by others.
Most prominently are 251 Beatles songs, including "Yesterday," "Penny Lane" and "Eleanor Rigby," which are played millions of times a year in the United States. The Beatles material is the most valuable collection in the world, generating $80 million in royalties a year -- and Jackson owns half.
"Music publishing is what artists call their money in the bank," said music executive Bruno del Granado. "It's their kids' inheritance."
But now, ABC News has learned that Jackson the music publisher is being advised by his financial team to sell a significant share of the Beatles' song catalog to pay mounting legal bills and operating costs.[/b]
Sources say Jackson has missed several payrolls at his Neverland ranch since his trial on child molestation charges began, and several sources say he has a dire cash-flow problem that has even forced him to miss some payments to his attorneys. He is being sued by creditors for nonpayment, and he was behind in rent at a number of Southern California storage facilities for his music videos.
The pop star is on trial in Santa Maria, Calif., accused of molesting a former cancer patient and plying the boy with alcohol. Jackson has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Mountains of Debt
Jackson has huge outstanding loans -- the music catalog is collateral for one debt to Bank of America of $270 million. The cash influx from a sale, valued at a half-billion dollars, would solve all those problems, say analysts, and would provide him with $7 million to $8 million a year to live on.
"I think what has happened is Michael does have some big payments coming due in coming days, and the screws are being turned by some of the creditors who gave them those loans," said Brett Pulley of Forbes magazine.
Several sources close to him say the financial team has structured a deal -- all that's needed is Jackson's signature -- but he is resisting because selling would be psychologically devastating. And late today, Jackson himself said through his spokeswoman that there is no truth to reports he is selling his collection.
see, that's the big phrase that stands out to me. His 'operating costs', from even the little I have read, sound astronomical WITHOUT major litigation, and these lawyers are not in it for the free pub, I guarantee you.
Too bad his 'operations' these days seem to revolve around his obsession with kids(whatever that may allegedly entail or otherwise) than making decent music.
And I dont think hes guilty either. I have no idea about this specific case, but if you think his attitudes about other people's kids are normal, acceptable, or commendable, you're outta your mind. He has himself to blame for this, that I firmly believe.[/b]
And I dont think hes guilty either. I have no idea about this specific case, but if you think his attitudes about other people's kids are normal, acceptable, or commendable, you're outta your mind. He has himself to blame for this, that I firmly believe.[/b]
I dunno. Ive been working at this studio thats owned by his brother (jackie) and although Im sure his opinion is biased, I believed him when he said he was sure mike aint molest no children.
I wont tell you hes not a fucking weird dude, and Im sure hes totally in outer space mentally these days, and im pretty sure hes still on mad drugs. but I just dont see ANYTHING even remotely sexual about michael jackson. I think he is kinda deranged and playing out a childhood fantasy, but I just dont think sex is involved in that.
thats just my opinion.
but even if hes stuffing kids into his fucking crawlspace and eating little babies, Im still bumping thriller till I die. Word is bond.
Comments
I was thinking the same thing when I saw 'Captain Ron'
It's funny, cuz in the commentary for 'Escape From New York', John Carpenter is giving him total shit for 'Captain Ron'! Very funny.
Fine.
Birdman is making it sound like the trial is a concerted effort to wrest the catalogue from Michael.
i'm waiting 'til everything is said and done, til i start forming my opinions. Even then as a couple people mentioned, we weren't there.
No, if you go back and READ, I said that Michael himself is putting this out there as a reason for his troubles, that it's all part of some vast conspiracy.
As I said, I think he has a hard time believing that HE may be responsible for all this himself. But I am sure there are plenty of people happy that he has put his assets(like the Beatles catalog) in such a bad position.
IMG SRC=http://www.lisarein.com/djspooky.gif>IMG SRC=http://www.new-video.de/co/ronkreuz.jpg HEIGHT=240>
Carry on.
Actually, if you get right down to it, I'd take Captain Ron over DJ Spooky any day of the week.
captain ron looks like crockett after a day of binging on columbian gold, w/o tubbs...
you just don't GET IT man
don't hate because you're ignorant. they don't call him 'that subliminal kid' for nothing
PAUL D MILLER IS SMARTER THAN ALL OF US AND WANTS YOU TO KNOW IT
plus he has that cool hat
I saw him speak and "perform" at Yale a few months ago on some "Examination Of Sampling" type tour with the Negativeland guy and some lawyers and....you're absolutley right.
Oh and I'd take any Kurt Russel film over a DJ Spooky, lesser of two evils, ya know? Even a Tango & Cash/3000 Miles to Graceland/Escape from L.A. triple feature.
Word.
Maybe, but I saw him live last fall and it was very
Almost no mixing, and the whole set was played off an ipod w/ cdjs. It was a small affair, but if someone paid me $5000...
Here's what you said:
"Yes. He has been quoted as sayingthat all this is an attempt to wrest controlling interest in that away from him, that there is a conspiracy afoot.
I am sure there is an attempt toget this[/b], as it surely is among his most valuable assets(moreso than his own publishing, probably)---but a conspiracy? I dunno. But I bet that Paul McCartney is probably licking his chops waiting for a 'guilty' verdict. McCartney still feels burned by Michael and for good reason."
So you don't agree with Jackson that there's a conspiracy afoot, but you are "sure [that] there's an attempt to get [the Beatles catalogue]." You even went on to say that the wheeling and dealing of rich people (who you know nothing about, whether it be personally or professionally) is a giant game of chess in that if you endgame the King of Pop, then glory be to you and your newly racked up assets.
Look, I'll agree with you that many people would like to get their hands on the Beatles catalogue, but the way in which you framed this topic makes it sound like the fall of Michael Jackson functions as a pretext for acquiring the Beatles catalogue. That's what I don't buy. OK?
No, I merely pointed out that the catalogue's value and place in all this is not lost on those in a position to potentially gain from it(you know, those wealthy people whom I don't know personally or professionally)and Jackson's continued problems. I don't think it holds a central place, I never framed it as such, but it sure sounds like Jackson holds it close as a handy excuse as to why he's being 'persecuted'. His legal troubles are obviously the result of his own thirst for attention, stupid admissions, years of questionable(to say the least) activities with children and a DA who is clearly trying to make his career and a hard-on for getting Jackson behind bars at all costs.
He'd already done that himself. He spent so much money recording "Incredible" that Sony said "no mas", so he effectively mortgaged his share of the ATV catalogue as collateral in the event that "Incredible" tanked, which it did. It was then suggested by him, albeit not directly, that Sony had deliberately killed the record in order to get their hands on the Beatles catalogue. This doesn't explain why Sony hasn't called its marker in yet. All this took place long before the current charges were brought, or even before the Martin Bashir documentary was broadcast.
My girl used to work for Sony in the music publishing division, and during lunch with one of the legal cats from their NY office a few years back, she learned that Michael Jackson has been tapping Sony for unrecoupable loans for quite some time now - well over five years. Why does a guy who must have sold nearly 100m records, if not more, need to go to his label with a begging bowl?
Cool.
fuck yall. im going to bed.
He was 7 when he first became a star, and he's blind, which is an added burdon... No, wait, that's Stevie Wonder. Didn't he turn out OK?
On the Beatles "catalog". The way I understand it the Beatles (Paul, Ringo and the widows) control the use of all the beatles recordings along with EMI. MJ owns (or owned) the publishing rights to the Nothern Song catalog, which is most of their pre-Apple recordings. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but that is how I understood it. Sony would profit more from a MJ restored to hitdom than to gaining control of the catalog it seems to me. Paul had his chances to buy the catalog but got out bid. I would hope he is man enough to understand that.
I was a big Woody Allen fan, today all his work is tainted in my eyes.
I think Chinatown is a brilliantly disturbing movie, all the more disturbing for who made it.
I hope I never see Birth Of A Nation, or anything done by that Nazi Bitch.
I enjoy listening to music in it's cultural context. For me the context of MJ's music will always include who he was, and who he has become.
Weather or not he is found guilty on current charges, I think we can all agree that we wouldn't let any child we know sleep with him, and we all know why.
Dan
I never said I want to listen to music by "good" people. I never even said I wouldn't listen to music by bad people. I did say who makes the music influences how I hear it. Thus I don't listen to Amy Grant, she's an adultress.
Dan
True indeed, while a lot of stuff has been said in this case that could be true or false, two things are indisputably true:
-Mike has admitted on TV that he finds nothing wrong with sharing his bed with children
-despite the legal and financial ramifications of sleeping with children (i.e paying off accusing families for whatever reasons to stay out of court), he continues to do so. Now, if you supposedly already got burnt twice by greedy families trying to make a buck off you, wouldn't you be at least be a little bit apprehensive about putting yourself in a similiar situation?
At the very least, his desire to have children around him supercedes the desire to keep himself out of these sticky financial/legal situations. Or does he believe that it's worth the millions of $$$ he's shelled out over the years to maintain this lifestyle? Either he's just a way too trusting and naive individual, or someone with his priorites severely mixed up.
Will Michael Jackson Sell His Music?
Facing Huge Debts, Pop Star Might Sell Valuable Catalog
By JIM AVILA and EILEEN MURPHY
- Michael Jackson is in danger of losing much of his most valuable asset -- his catalog of other people's music, including the Beatles'.
Music analysts say he is probably no longer able to demand such huge money for tours, and his record sales are no longer in the superstar range. Jackson is now more music mogul than music performer; the bulk of his revenue is earned by royalties from songs he owns.
These include not only his own compositions, but also an extensive and very lucrative catalog of songs by others.
Most prominently are 251 Beatles songs, including "Yesterday," "Penny Lane" and "Eleanor Rigby," which are played millions of times a year in the United States. The Beatles material is the most valuable collection in the world, generating $80 million in royalties a year -- and Jackson owns half.
"Music publishing is what artists call their money in the bank," said music executive Bruno del Granado. "It's their kids' inheritance."
But now, ABC News has learned that Jackson the music publisher is being advised by his financial team to sell a significant share of the Beatles' song catalog to pay mounting legal bills and operating costs.[/b]
Sources say Jackson has missed several payrolls at his Neverland ranch since his trial on child molestation charges began, and several sources say he has a dire cash-flow problem that has even forced him to miss some payments to his attorneys. He is being sued by creditors for nonpayment, and he was behind in rent at a number of Southern California storage facilities for his music videos.
The pop star is on trial in Santa Maria, Calif., accused of molesting a former cancer patient and plying the boy with alcohol. Jackson has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Mountains of Debt
Jackson has huge outstanding loans -- the music catalog is collateral for one debt to Bank of America of $270 million. The cash influx from a sale, valued at a half-billion dollars, would solve all those problems, say analysts, and would provide him with $7 million to $8 million a year to live on.
"I think what has happened is Michael does have some big payments coming due in coming days, and the screws are being turned by some of the creditors who gave them those loans," said Brett Pulley of Forbes magazine.
Several sources close to him say the financial team has structured a deal -- all that's needed is Jackson's signature -- but he is resisting because selling would be psychologically devastating. And late today, Jackson himself said through his spokeswoman that there is no truth to reports he is selling his collection.
Copyright ?? 2005 ABC News Internet Ventures
web page
see, that's the big phrase that stands out to me. His 'operating costs', from even the little I have read, sound astronomical WITHOUT major litigation, and these lawyers are not in it for the free pub, I guarantee you.
Too bad his 'operations' these days seem to revolve around his obsession with kids(whatever that may allegedly entail or otherwise) than making decent music.
MJ's music is fucking timeless. And I dont think hes guilty either.
The masquerade is over. It's time for him to live on the paltry 40 million a year the publishing generates.
Dan
I dunno. Ive been working at this studio thats owned by his brother (jackie) and although Im sure his opinion is biased, I believed him when he said he was sure mike aint molest no children.
I wont tell you hes not a fucking weird dude, and Im sure hes totally in outer space mentally these days, and im pretty sure hes still on mad drugs. but I just dont see ANYTHING even remotely sexual about michael jackson. I think he is kinda deranged and playing out a childhood fantasy, but I just dont think sex is involved in that.
thats just my opinion.
but even if hes stuffing kids into his fucking crawlspace and eating little babies, Im still bumping thriller till I die. Word is bond.