HIStory
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 6
- Points
- 0
i will not be buying any further future releases from michael jacksons estate. im done
And how do you think that will punish Sony, Branca or anyone other than MJ?
i will not be buying any further future releases from michael jacksons estate. im done
Does this deal mean that MJ's $300 million business debt related to the ATV catalog is wiped out since Sony now has 100% ownership, or must the Estate still pay this debt?
It was mjs personal debt not sonyatv so the estate have paid it off with money from the sale.
At the end of the day is it feasable for the estate to add another 750 mill of debt (if they could even get their hands on such money) to the estate. How ever much it hurts and by heck it does in a business sense its not workable.
They didnt need to kill him just activate the clause in the deal. next.
At the end of the day i have more problems buying estate products knowing they keep handing over money hand over fist to kj .the latest filing is yet another p*** take
This clause was activated last year not a few days ago.
What i dont understand it why such a clause was agreed apon in 95. Is it normal because it sounds illogical to make such an agreement where one side can just buy out the other regardless.
By the way the same poster who is talking now about the estate being forced to do so by that clause, went on the offensive when the news first broke months ago to explain how it was not really either party being forced to sell or buy.
Koopa Troopa;4140963 said:But it was reported that all of MJ's personal debt was paid in full by the end of 2012. Only business debt remained and that was related to the ATV catalog. I was wondering if Sony's purchase meant that they took over the business debt that MJ accrued. I know that when Lisa Marie Presley sold the Elvis estate, the company that bought it paid off the debts too. I was wondering if this had a similar arrangement. Does anybody know?
Jackson was days away from filing for bankruptcy in 2006 when Sony chief Howard Stringer and CFO Robert Wiesenthal bailed him out. In return, Sony took greater operational control of Sony/ATV and received an option to buy half of Jackson’s share. The loan, estimated at $280 million, was connected to the Sony/ATV catalog and secured by Barclays. The interest rate was negotiated down to 2.9% from 5.8% shortly after the Jackson’s death in July 2009. At that point, he was roughly half a billion dollars in debt.
That 10-year-old loan impactied the current buy/sell situation in that its terms provided Sony with a discount of around $150m on the purchase price.
And 3. (I'll go ahead and respond to this one, speculatively) Who benefits from this sale? The heirs benefit in the short-term with a flood of money. (but what about taxes on this non-pro-rated flood of income? Will be HUGE.) Yet, this catalog would only grow in value, and as an investment, was pretty much ideal long-term with no additional effort on the part of anyone (unlike new releases of MJ products, which would always be speculative). The executors will make an enormous income from this. ENORMOUS, in that they get a percentage of the estate's revenue. So an additional question would be, is this good for the heirs in the long-term, given the investment return increases that could have been expected over their lifetimes? I think it is not.
But it was reported that all of MJ's personal debt was paid in full by the end of 2012. Only business debt remained and that was related to the ATV catalog. I was wondering if Sony's purchase meant that they took over the business debt that MJ accrued. I know that when Lisa Marie Presley sold the Elvis estate, the company that bought it paid off the debts too. I was wondering if this had a similar arrangement. Does anybody know?
How do I feel about the sale? I feel horrible. This is a sentimental loss. An emotional loss. No artists appreciated the history of music like Michael did and I was always proud that he owned that catalog. It couldn't have been in better hands.How to you feel about this Barbee? Does it hurt that MJ knew they were trying to kill him?
Autumn II;4140960 said:I think there is more to this story, actually. I have three primary questions.
1. If there was fifty/fifty ownership (there was) what were additional contractual clauses that could have prevented this sale? Clearly, the sale was negotiated in some respects (both sides give something in an MOA), so it appears there was wiggle-room for the estate.
2. If Sony always had this take-over, buy-out, potential, why NOW?
And 3. (I'll go ahead and respond to this one, speculatively) Who benefits from this sale? The heirs benefit in the short-term with a flood of money. (but what about taxes on this non-pro-rated flood of income? Will be HUGE.) Yet, this catalog would only grow in value, and as an investment, was pretty much ideal long-term with no additional effort on the part of anyone (unlike new releases of MJ products, which would always be speculative). The executors will make an enormous income from this. ENORMOUS, in that they get a percentage of the estate's revenue. So an additional question would be, is this good for the heirs in the long-term, given the investment return increases that could have been expected over their lifetimes? I think it is not.
ivy;4140975 said:There are two possible explanations to these. Either there was other clauses that prevented them from exercising this one until now. Or they had no interest in Michael's share until now.
ivy;4140975 said:There is a lot of assumption involved here. First starting with Executors will make enormous income. We don't know if that's true.
This is the initial executor compensation details : "The men agreed in February 2010 to accept 10 percent of the gross entertainment-related earnings of the estate, minus money generated by Jackson’s 50 percent interest in the Sony-ATV music catalog and earnings from “This Is It,” a film compiled from the singer’s final rehearsals."
ivy;4140975 said:According to this they don't get money from Sony/ATV. So I'm curious to learn what makes anyone say Executors will be paid for this sale.
ivy;4140975 said:As for the asset wise. It's an asset valued at $1.5 Billion to $2 Billion for the whole Sony/ATV and $750 Million for Estate's share according to this sale. However Estate only got $17 Million annually in guaranteed income and most of it went to debt payment. So this sale means they got 43 years worth of income from the catalog. While the catalog value will grow, I'm not sure that would mean the revenues will grow especially given the status of the music industry. Furthermore buying Sony's share would mean additional debt to repay and that would probably lower the income received as well. So you tell me, is it better in the long term?
I know very well what a shotgun clause is because at the time I was the one who first wondered whether this is what they were talking about, a fear which of course you dismissed at the time. At this point the estate has lost all its credibility with the fans, not that they really care considering they are making tons of money selling everything mj fought nail and tooth to keep.
o m g. now they have won. murdered him, and now have what they want. everyone who gets now money from this, you have blood on your hands ... ROT IN HELL!!!
why selling the 50% ? why now? it was said there was no debt, in 2012?
I know very well what a shotgun clause is because at the time I was the one who first wondered whether this is what they were talking about, a fear which of course you dismissed at the time.
o m g. now they have won. murdered him, and now have what they want. everyone who gets now money from this, you have blood on your hands ... ROT IN HELL!!!
why selling the 50% ? why now? it was said there was no debt, in 2012?
The Estate have only "lost all its credibility" with fans that don't understand the detail.
If you must blame someone, and it seems you must, then MJ, unfortunately, is the only one you can really blame for this outcome.
Me? I blame nobody. MJ did what he had to do at the time, and The Estate did well getting this large amount of money for a 50% share in a dying industry.
it was said there was no debt, in 2012?
Then we'll all rot in hell, since we will also profit from this deal through new releases etc. :smilerolleyes:
I suggest you read the news articles first before you start making wild accusations.
Estate couldn't have said no if I understand right.
they said his personal debts were paid. The debt on Sony/ATV was and is still being paid.
I feel gutted.
Michael clung to that catalog for dear life. Even when he was cash strapped, selling it was not an option.
Good business decision or not, I feel the Estate let down Michael's wishes.
I remember sometime back they said they would hang on to the catalog as an asset for the beneficiaries.
What a let down.
thats a question. does someone know?
I feel gutted.
Michael clung to that catalog for dear life. Even when he was cash strapped, selling it was not an option.
Good business decision or not, I feel the Estate let down Michael's wishes.
I remember sometime back they said they would hang on to the catalog as an asset for the beneficiaries.
What a let down.