$30 Billion!! ...a 2Dec08 article says that Sony/ATV was recently valued at $30 bil

Rasta Pasta

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6,098
Points
0
Location
Milan Itlay
this is an article I came across today that says that the last time Sony/ATV valued Northern songs (the Beatles music mostly).. it was valued at $30 Billions... The author of the new book on the Beatles states this...

there are many doubters as to Michael's fortune and business acumen... but what I like about this article is that it challenges the Beatles' business sense.. in what they or their advisors did wrong...

its just power for the course for me...

Get Lit: Beatles for Sale by John Blaney

Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:02:15 AM
Another Beatles book? Doesn't the world already know everything it possibly can about the Fab Four, from the nickname of their favorite Hamburg pill dealer to the mustache style of the cab driver who took George through the streets of Rishikesh?
Well... no. And as long as interest in the band continues to flower - and pass along to new generations - Ye Olde Beatles Bookshelf will continue to groan under the accumulated weight of its tomes. Beatles for Sale, though, is the first one to make a comprehensive study of the group through the prism of its finances. Publishing, record contracts, Apple, Inc., merchandising, management, movies and even their fan club are studied with an accountant's eye.

The result is actually not dry and pretty fascinating - mostly how the biggest group in the world, before or since, made blunders that even today's MySpace minions wouldn't fall for. You never give me your money? Not unless it's in the contract, baby.

Rocks Off spoke with Beatles for Sale author and all-around Fabs expert John Blaney (Lennon and McCartney: Together Alone - A Critical Discography of Their Solo Work) about a wide range of money matters that would make a Liverpool taxman orgasm with delight.



Rocks Off: With so many hundreds of books already written about the Beatles, what made you decide to concentrate on their financial life?



John Blaney: It's a fascinating aspect of The Beatles' story that's never been covered in-depth. Money is like sex. None of us think we are getting enough, and when a group like the Beatles comes along, we all want to know how much they're getting and what they do with it.

The fact that The Beatles could have been even richer is also intriguing. Where did it go? And when you look into their business deals, you realize how they were controlled by businessmen and lawyers from the word go. They didn't stand a chance.

RO: The Beatles made many bad business decisions that even a struggling band today would never make. Do you think it's because many of these areas for bands - publishing, merchandising - were relatively new at the time?

JB: To be fair, The Beatles didn't make the mistakes. Their manager, lawyers, and accountants made the mistakes because nobody, with the exception of Elvis Presley and the Disney Corporation, had ever done anything like this before.

The Beatles had to rely on advisors, who for the most part didn't appreciate just how much the group could earn. It wouldn't happen today, because everyone has learned from the mistakes made by
[manager Brian] Epstein and his advisors.

RO: Brian Epstein: how much "blame" should he really get for his bad or uninformed decisions?
JB: The buck stops with Epstein (right). He constantly said The Beatles were going to be bigger than Elvis, and yet he constantly undervalued the group. While it's true that he was breaking new ground with some of his business deals, a businessman would have fought for better deals than Epstein secured.

It's easy to blame him in hindsight, but contemporaries like Don Arden and Allen Klein would have cut better deals. But whether they would have been better for The Beatles is unlikely. If nothing else Epstein was honest, open and a gentleman.

RO: Epstein also signed away a shocking 90 percent of the Beatles' merchandising sales to the Seltaeb company. Is this his biggest blunder?

JB: It sounds like a massive blunder, but the real shocker is the fact that Lennon and McCartney ended up losing the rights to their own songs. The last time Sony/ATV, which owns Northern Songs, was valued, it was said to be worth $30 billion!

What they lost in merchandising is peanuts compared to what they lost in royalties when they lost control of Northern Songs. The merchandising bubble would have only lasted a few years at best, but the royalties from songwriting will keep pouring in for as long as their music lasts. And it looks like that is going to be a long time.
RO: I was surprised to find out that Paul McCartney only co-owns outright the publishing on two songs - "Love Me Do" and "P.S. I Love You". Do you think he's just resigned to this fact today, or does it still drive him that he could get the rights back?
JB: McCartney has said he's happy to sit back and wait, because in a few years, some of the rights revert back to him. Why he didn't buy ATV/Northern Songs when he had the chance [in 1981] is a mystery. He could have sold off ATV and effectively acquired Northern Songs for next to nothing. But he was adamant that he only wanted Northern Songs. Somebody else stepped in. and he lost the chance to buy back his "babies."
RO: What do you make personally about Northern Songs honcho Dick James not notifying the Beatles of the earlier original sale?
JB: Dick James had a pretty good hunch that without Epstein to guide them, the Beatles would split up - and he was right. However, the gentlemanly thing to have done was give them first refusal. That he went behind their backs says a lot. I think he was only interested in looking after himself. But how short-sighted he was.
Surely, he must have known that Lennon and McCartney's songs would continue to earn vast sums of money regardless of whether or not the Beatles were a working band. He's another example of what the Beatles were up against - the fast buck rather then long term investment. But that was the nature of the music business at the time.
RO: You mention that the Beatles sold more records in 1996 than in any other year up until then. There is only a finite amount of material that can be packaged and repackaged. What are your thoughts on that?
JB: I think Apple has done a good job, so far. But in my opinion, they seem to be struggling to give the fans what they want. The Love project was a real disappointment. I'd rather hear the 20-minute version of "Helter Skelter," no matter how bad it is, or "Carnival of Light," than an uninspired Giles Martin remix of "Because."
I think the release of the re-mastered albums, whether on CD or as downloads, will be the last big push from Apple. I really can't see the Beatles topping the 1996 sales figure ever again. The market is changing, their audience is getting older, and there's only so many times you can get people to pay for something they already own.
RO: Any other comments?
JB: This is a story that will run and run. Beatles for Sale only scratches the surface. We will never know the whole story, because too many interested parties want to keep it secret, and who can blame them? John Lennon was right, the Beatles made a lot of people millionaires. The group probably still generates more money than some Third World countries, and nobody wants to harm the golden goose.
And that includes people like me who have made money from them. It's an irony that's not lost on me, I can assure you! - Bob Ruggiero
Beatles for Sale: How Everything They Touched Turned into Gold, by John Blaney. Jaw Bone Press, 288 pp., $19.95.
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/rocks/2008/12/get_lit_beatles_for_sale_by_jo.php
 
Thanks Rasta, that was a great find!

I never doubted for a second that the Sony/ATV catalog was way more valuable then reported. I mean, if the press talked about the catalog's real value, it would not match up with their constant MJ is poor stories. LOL!

The article asked a question as to "was it previously known how valuable publishing is?" I think that a lot of people didn't realize that publishing was indeed the way to go, but for some reason MJ had the foresight to obtain the cream of the crop and I "think" that's where some of the hate comes from. I was just reading an article the other day, which talking about even in these troubling financial times, publishing is STILL a sure bet.

Michael Jackson is definitely a FORCE to be reckoned with!
 
In your face!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hahhahahahhaha

GANGSTA...................


LIKE MY SIGGY!! SHAMONE $30 Billion HEE HEE MUTHERF*CKERS ...........ROTFLMAO!!!
 
My, my Rasta.... you do find the most intriguing articles, don't U? Heh. This should keep peeps busy for a minute...

JB: It sounds like a massive blunder, but the real shocker is the fact that Lennon and McCartney ended up losing the rights to their own songs. The last time Sony/ATV, which owns Northern Songs, was valued, it was said to be worth $30 billion!

It would be interesting to know how much of that 30bn is attributable to ATV [Northern].


JB: McCartney has said he's happy to sit back and wait, because in a few years, some of the rights revert back to him. Why he didn't buy ATV/Northern Songs when he had the chance [in 1981] is a mystery. He could have sold off ATV and effectively acquired Northern Songs for next to nothing. But he was adamant that he only wanted Northern Songs. Somebody else stepped in. and he lost the chance to buy back his "babies."


And this is exactly why Paul never gets any sympathy from me. He and Yoko Ono could not get their act together to see the bigger picture. No way would I have left my publishing rights on the table because I didn't want 'the other stuff'. And even for some of his rights to accure because of the time limitations on intellectural property, it's still not the same as having owned it outright.
 
Last edited:
If Michael had that much money (or even a fraction of it) he would not have had to sell Neverland :cry:
 
Last edited:
Great find Rasta.
Even Michael's HALF--or QUARTER- ownership is so valuable
I wonder if Michael Jackson gets a mention in the book, as the person who bought Northern Songs
Dawn
 
If Michael had that much money (or even a fraction of it) he would not have had to see Neverland :cry:

First of all, nobody really knows what the real deal is with Neverland.

Aside from that, rich folks sell their homes everyday, LOL, and it has nothing to do with their net worth.
 
Great find Rasta.
Even Michael's HALF--or QUARTER- ownership is so valuable
I wonder if Michael Jackson gets a mention in the book, as the person who bought Northern Songs
Dawn

Of course not. That would be too much like right.
 
First of all, nobody really knows what the real deal is with Neverland.

Aside from that, rich folks sell their homes everyday, LOL, and it has nothing to do with their net worth.

:yes: ... well said
 
If Michael had that much money (or even a fraction of it) he would not have had to see Neverland :cry:

umm??? .... I really do not agree with you..

and I look at the glass 1/2 full.. and would say Michael must have some money.. otherwise he would have "really" sold Neverland and would be touring non-stop ...

because the media didn't jump on this supposed Neverland sales.. tells me that there is really more to it to that joint venture Michael has with Sycamore in regards to Neverland...

but if it makes more sense to you to think he isn't worth much.. thats ok too..
 
because the media didn't jump on this supposed Neverland sales.. tells me that there is really more to it to that joint venture Michael has with Sycamore in regards to Neverland...

I'm happy to say that I comprehend the media just like you do. LOL!

My other little tip is: when the media doesn't say anything, that means it was good news for MJ!
 
My, my Rasta.... you do find the most intriguing articles, don't U? Heh. This should keep peeps busy for a minute...



It would be interesting to know how much of that 30bn is attributable to ATV [Northern].


well, Michael brought to the bargaining table with Sony.. the whole catalog of ATV and Nothern songs... and if I understand it correctly... even when some song rights is reverted to Paul ... Michael will still be sitting pretty..................................the key is "Northern songs"
 
I'm happy to say that I comprehend the media just like you do. LOL!

My other little tip is: when the media doesn't say anything, that means it was good news for MJ!

Exactly, and not even... the stalker jumped on it so you know what's up...

in 2008.. Michael has not lost his business golden touch at all... anyways......I digress...

back to that Sony/ATV catalog.......................

how peeps can acknowledge that Michael is part owner of Sony/ATV.. nor think of it as Sony/Michael Jackson... and still don't look at him with the same respect as they do to Sony is beyond me..or JayZ or Diddy or Donald Trump ...
 
Great find Rasta.
Even Michael's HALF--or QUARTER- ownership is so valuable
I wonder if Michael Jackson gets a mention in the book, as the person who bought Northern Songs
Dawn


he does. his name is Somebody Else. and they know who they mean by that.
 
JB: McCartney has said he's happy to sit back and wait, because in a few years, some of the rights revert back to him. Why he didn't buy ATV/Northern Songs when he had the chance [in 1981] is a mystery. He could have sold off ATV and effectively acquired Northern Songs for next to nothing. But he was adamant that he only wanted Northern Songs. Somebody else stepped in. and he lost the chance to buy back his "babies."
What's funny about this statement is that McCartney has been saying this exact thing for YEARS AND YEARS.... Every time it is mentioned, he just has "a few years" to go before he regains some additional rights to the songs in the catalog. Well, a few years have come and gone and he still apparently doesn't have any new found rights to the songs. And several years ago he made it sound like he'd have ALL of the rights returned to him.
 
What's funny about this statement is that McCartney has been saying this exact thing for YEARS AND YEARS.... Every time it is mentioned, he just has "a few years" to go before he regains some additional rights to the songs in the catalog. Well, a few years have come and gone and he still apparently doesn't have any new found rights to the songs. And several years ago he made it sound like he'd have ALL of the rights returned to him.

Poor thing. LOL!

Homeboy is just trying to "save face," since everybody knows he and his crew screwed up BIG TIME, when they allowed their songs to be sold.
 
I don't want many ppl to know about this because they will start to draw new plans and conspiracies to get his money , more law suits more leeches ....plz keep it between us and Michael.
 
so does this mean :heart:Michael owns almost 15 billion $! :huh:

Well, first of all, we don't know how much the ATV/Sony cat is worth, but obviously it's a prime investment. Second, I don't know if it works out that MJ owns 15bn per se. I would imagine that they leverage the cat to purchase other acquisitions, but no question:

If MJ were to cash out now, he would be sitting quite pretty. Quite pretty indeed.
 
If Michael had that much money (or even a fraction of it) he would not have had to see Neverland :cry:

First of all, having assets that are worth that much doesn't mean he has access to that amount in cash. He may still have cash problems from time to time. We don't know if this is the case or not. (I think not, but that's my guess.)

Second of all, we don't know whether he's even sold Neverland, much less why. Brian Oxman said only last week that it's all a joint venture with the intent of developing Neverland so that it can turn a profit. If this is true, it makes a lot of sense since Michael declared years ago that he would never live there again. He can't just let it sit there for ever without making some sensible use of the place.
 
I don't know what was on Paul's mind in 1981. :doh:

Oh well, can't hate on a man who basically knew what to buy and how to market it. :giggle:

Paul's probably not gonna get the rights back anyway. Maybe John Lennon's family may get some reprieve...just maybe, who knows? Maybe not.

But that's just silly how dumb Paul was back then. He got the MPL catalog though so I bet he's not really mad anymore.
 
What's funny about this statement is that McCartney has been saying this exact thing for YEARS AND YEARS.... Every time it is mentioned, he just has "a few years" to go before he regains some additional rights to the songs in the catalog. Well, a few years have come and gone and he still apparently doesn't have any new found rights to the songs. And several years ago he made it sound like he'd have ALL of the rights returned to him.

And wouldn't this be easy to confirm? Depending on where the copyrights were registered, all one would have to do is to review the laws of that country with respect to copyrights reverting.

In the U.S., all I could fine is that a person and his estate has economic control for up to 50 years after the death of the originator and that copyrights are good for 95 years. Since McCarthny does not have economic control, under US copyright law, he would have to wait, oh about, uhem.... another 40 - 55 years for it to be expired [assuming a 2nd tier extension was filed for works done before 1978].

But who knows. I would think that if it is so, then Paul should know exactly when he regains some rights.

But then again, this has been a case in point for artists like Little Richard [who MJ returned his publishings right to him]. I would think that LR would have eventually got some rights, too, if there is some rule that states that after a certain time, the original author gets to claim something.

McCartney could be referring to a side deal as well. But it wouldn't be like owning it outright.
 
He got the MPL catalog though so I bet he's not really mad anymore.

He don't have to be mad, but man, he is probably kicking himself EVERY DAY, for letting his songs slip through his fingers, because he was unwilling to open up his purse strings. LOL!
 
He don't have to be mad, but man, he is probably kicking himself EVERY DAY, for letting his songs slip through his fingers, because he was unwilling to open up his purse strings. LOL!

TRANSLATION: Cuz he was being CHEAP.
 
I may not have read the OP accurately, by how is this linked to Michael Jackson?
 
Back
Top