View Full Version : Michael Jackson Is Feeling The Heat $$$
Frank Giaramita
04/21/06, 09:52 AM
Michael Jackson came to terms with Sony this week to sell 50% of his stakes in the Beatles catalogue. The deal is reportedly worth around $200 million.
Source: Decoy Music
-Aaron-
04/21/06, 09:52 AM
As I go more in debt from college rich people keep getting richer. fucking sweet deal.
Frank Giaramita
04/21/06, 09:54 AM
As I go more in debt from college rich people keep getting richer. fucking sweet deal.
I wouldn't say Michael Jackson is getting "richer and richer"...he owes a ridiculous amount of people and ridiculous amount of money. I think it's pretty apparent that he had relatively no choice but to sell the catalog to stay financially afloat.
SydBarrett 420
04/21/06, 09:55 AM
I hope everyone realizes that this was the main point of the harassment and trial that ol Jacko went through. I am not Jacko fan, but the catalogs Jackson owned are invaluable. Jacko has always had a lot of contempt for what he perceives as the Jewish controlled record industry. Sony has coveted these catalogs for years. Don't think that all os this is a coincidence or an accident. Jacko may have beat the criminal rap, but Sony was eyeing this like a wolf over a wounded lamb.
Roboman
04/21/06, 09:55 AM
Why the hell does he have stakes in The Beatles catalogue in the first place?
AmericanZen
04/21/06, 09:55 AM
If anything I feel better about what I owe in student loans know. It's just a drop in the bucket
Waltz Whitman
04/21/06, 09:59 AM
Why the hell does he have stakes in The Beatles catalogue in the first place?
Bad decisions on The Beatles part had them up for sale in the 80s and the bastard Jacko snatched them right out from underneath Paul. The two haven't spoken since I believe.
If anything Paul and/or Ringo should own the entire catalogue.
This is weird, I just listened to the White Album today for the first time in ages.
Katie Schmitz
04/21/06, 10:01 AM
it's' about time; jackson honestly had no reason to whoard those rights ... wtf was the point after all?
fairview00
04/21/06, 10:01 AM
good.
Frank Giaramita
04/21/06, 10:04 AM
Why the hell does he have stakes in The Beatles catalogue in the first place?
I'm surprised you never heard the story about him and Mccartney. Paul mccartney was close friends with Jackson and suggested to him that it would be a wise business move to start purchasing publishing rights to songs. Jackson listened- In 1985, the publishing company that owned 37.5% of the Beatles catalog, which was owned by the band's manager, was sold, and Mccartney (who owned about 15% of the catalog on his own) tried to purchase the 37.5% but was outbidded by Michael.
ironlionOROKU
04/21/06, 10:06 AM
business is business...
fedhed7
04/21/06, 10:07 AM
He should have just sold Neverland.
Frank Giaramita
04/21/06, 10:11 AM
business is business...
I don't agree.
If a desire for money outweighs morallity, ethics and human decency (especially when dealing with a friend or loved one, like in this case), something is terribly wrong.
it's' about time; jackson honestly had no reason to whoard those rights ... wtf was the point after all?
$$$
in all honesty though, i'd rather michael owned the rights than sony. because at least in his hands, they're owned by an artist (even if he's not the one who created the music) and not a corporation. shit, the right thing to do would have been to sell them to mccartney.
Katie Schmitz
04/21/06, 10:13 AM
He should have just sold Neverland.
and sell away all those precious memories, jacko think not
Katie Schmitz
04/21/06, 10:18 AM
$$$
in all honesty though, i'd rather michael owned the rights than sony. because at least in his hands, they're owned by an artist (even if he's not the one who created the music) and not a corporation. shit, the right thing to do would have been to sell them to mccartney.
honestly, i'm glad that jackson is selling ... i never felt he should have owned them in the first place; even though he bought them fair and square
I was bidding on this.
Lost.
RLY.
-ACA
the sob
04/21/06, 10:28 AM
thats not that good of a deal considering his entire stake was estimated to be about 1 billion
thats not that good of a deal considering his entire stake was estimated to be about 1 billion seriously, you'd think the beatles catalogue would be worth more than facebook
the sob
04/21/06, 10:38 AM
seriously, you'd think the beatles catalogue would be worth more than facebook
how much was facebook sold for
Frank Giaramita
04/21/06, 10:46 AM
$$$
in all honesty though, i'd rather michael owned the rights than sony. because at least in his hands, they're owned by an artist (even if he's not the one who created the music) and not a corporation. shit, the right thing to do would have been to sell them to mccartney.
So you're telling me you want Michael Jackson to continue allowing cell phone and car companies to use disco versions of Beatles songs in their commercials?...
i honesdtly don't understand what he actually owned. was he just like making money off their cd sales and whatnot or like i don't really know what this stuff really means when you own 'catalogue'. sorry but someone please elaborate. do that many people eally still buy beatles records? and btw yes they are the best band ever and i love them to death i just am saying it's been so long.
anthony_jr
04/21/06, 12:08 PM
how much was facebook sold for
it wasn't sold yet. they turned down a $750 million dollar offer because they're looking for $2 billion.
yeah, $200 million is like selling these songs for nothing. it's pretty beat he's giving them to sony.
JunkBondTrader
04/21/06, 12:36 PM
if i was a billionaire I would buy the entire catalogue and give them to Paul and Ringo for free.
zizou1790
04/21/06, 12:49 PM
didnt jackson buy the whole catalogue for like 50 million only a couple years ago?
So you're telling me you want Michael Jackson to continue allowing cell phone and car companies to use disco versions of Beatles songs in their commercials?...
you think sony won't do the same?
About time, the douche shouldn't of had the rights to the songs in the first place.
He really had no choice, Michael's going broke anyway.
Frank Giaramita
04/21/06, 02:12 PM
you think sony won't do the same?
Oh, I don't doubt it for a second, but Michael Jackson ALREADY HAS done that stuff with the songs, so I at least feel more comfortable with them being in the hands of a company who MIGHT not do that. Even if the chances of Sony not disco-ing the songs is slim, it's better then them being in the hands of Michael, who definetely would screw with them because he has in the past.
saveyourshows
04/21/06, 02:18 PM
hes a THRILLAAA
vBulletin v3.6.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.