Latest on MJJC

How does mike get money from SONY/ATV catalogue?

not sure why i doesnt make sense to you? seems pretty logical interms of trust funds etc been set up to pay his debt. i think the issue is because you dont beleive it s a personal debt but a sony/atv one when thats not the case. hence sony been offered 25% for the OTT price of 1.125 billion. the price was made so high to put sony off but if sony went for it it wiuld give mj alot more money that it is actually worth so a win win .it was also reported by the N.y times and others who actually bothered to read the doc rather than running with mj has lost the cat story
 
Last edited:
elusive moonwalker said:
not sure why i doesnt make sense to you? seems pretty logical interms of trust funds etc been set up to pay his debt. i think the issue is because you dont beleive it s a personal debt but a sony/atv one when thats not the case. hence sony been offered 25% for the OTT price of 1.125 billion. the price was made so high to put sony off but if sony went for it it wiuld give mj alot more money that it is actually worth so a win win .it was also reported by the N.y times and others who actually bothered to read the doc rather than running with mj has lost the cat story
Click to expand...
No it isn't logical. Trust funds are usually set up to SAFE GUARD ones assets and protect it from being abused by external individuals. It is not usually set up to pay debts. That is usually the job of the bank. In fact nene of the story about the large debts and sony helping out make financial or business sense at all. None of it, That is why I said I would like to see it in black and white. Also, at the time of the tial Sneddon wanted to show that MJ was in massive debt, but he didn't even use that massive debt to prove his point, why?:)
Sony did not offer MJ no large amout of money to buy him out, It was revealed that BOTH SIDES had the same contractual agreement. Both sides had equal rights to the same terms.
 
Last edited:
no one on here OR in the media for that matter knows the details of Michael's income.. so lets just keep it real simple... Michael is the 50% owner of Sony/ATV..which can be confirmed on the Sony/ATV

Sony/ATV Music Publishing
  • Sony/ATV Music Publishing owns or administers copyrights and catalogs by such artists as The Beatles, Beck, Brooks & Dunn, Leonard Cohen, Neil Diamond, Bob Dylan, The Everly Brothers, Fall Out Boy, Jimi Hendrix, Billy Mann, Joni Mitchell, Graham Nash, Willie Nelson, Roy Orbison, Richie Sambora, Stephen Stills, KT Tunstall and Hank Williams, among others.
  • Sony/ATV Music Publishing is a worldwide music publishing joint venture between Sony and Michael Jackson.
  • Martin N. Bandier is Chairman and CEO of Sony/ATV Music Publishing http://www.sony.com/SCA/outline/atv.shtml
Click to expand...
and we know he is 100% owner of Mijac Publishing...
http://www.warnerchappell.com/wcm_2...tes&tf10=mijac&wcmsid=48AdOEos-tgrds9MtlhuPkx

these are both functional entities in the music business and in the music business NOTHING ...is done for FREE...

so how Michael is paid.. is probably not really our business eventhough we do care & want him to do well....so lets just leave it at.. he is PAID... AND VERY PAID WELL!
 
Last edited:
at the time of the tial Sneddon wanted to show that MJ was in massive debt, but he didn't even use that massive debt to prove his point, why?
Click to expand...

not sure what u mean by that? his point was mj was in debt so forced the family to make the rebuttal to help him make money yet mj never even used them in the programe lol

re the trust fund. maybe its worded different but its very normal to have money channelled into a certain account that them goes into paying off a debt. kinda like a standing order/direct debit.its a great way of ensuring the money is always there and so u dont default
 
elusive moonwalker said:
not sure what u mean by that? his point was mj was in debt so forced the family to make the rebuttal to help him make money yet mj never even used them in the programe lol

the money is always there and so u dont defaure the trust fund. maybe its worded different but its very normal to have money channelled into a certain account that them goes into paying off a debt. kinda like a standing order/direct debit.its a great way of ensuring lt
Click to expand...
The problem with this story is that it came from the media, not from MJ's camp. The media. When have they ever told a story straight. When have they never add a spin to it. Trust funds are Not usually set up to paY off debts. They are Usually set up to SECURE ones assets. Bank standing orders are usually set up to pay off debts. I made the point about Sneddon because they made every effort to invade MJ's finacial situatuion to prove that he was in debt up to his neck and yet they bypassed this so -called large loan that he owed, why was that?^_^
 
Last edited:
The problem with this story is that it came from the media, not from MJ's camp. The media. When have they ever told a story straight
Click to expand...

it comes from the refinancing docs tmk as i said.

still dont get what u mean re sneddon. he didnt bypass it at all. he asked for it to be brought in and it was.even though the agrument was ridiculous it was used against mj in the trial. u talk as if sneddon never used it.just talked about in motions in order to taint mj.like some of his claims about DNA and what not. it wasnt bypassed in anyway shape or form
 
Last edited:
elusive moonwalker said:
it comes from the refinancing docs tmk as i said.

still dont get what u mean re sneddon. he didnt bypass it at all. he asked for it to be brought in and it was.even though the agrument was ridiculous it was used against mj in the trial. u talk as if sneddon never used it.just talked about in motions in order to taint mj.like some of his claims about DNA and what not. it wasnt bypassed in anyway shape or form
Click to expand...
Did you ever see the refinancing document? As far as I know it was private and confidential. The large loan was mentioned briefly in court, but it was never proven that that loan was MJ's, They never showed that he owed that money. Just because they brought it up doesn't mean that thet proved it. To my knowledge, it disappeared as quickly as it was brought up. You would think that it would have been a big part of the case since Sneddon was trying to prove that he was broke.^_^
 
As far as I know it was private and confidential.
Click to expand...

mj asked for the the docs to be sealed but the judge refused. several ppl got hold of them from the courthouse as they are public property so to speak. and some in the media eventually bothered to write that mj hadnt lost 25% but sony had the option etc
 
elusive moonwalker said:
mj asked for the the docs to be sealed but the judge refused. several ppl got hold of them from the courthouse as they are public property so to speak. and some in the media eventually bothered to write that mj hadnt lost 25% but sony had the option etc
Click to expand...
What document are you talking about. What has MJ's refinacing have to do with a judge?:)
 
the refinancing documents u can ask for things to be sealed so the public doesnt have accesss to them.like janets marriage it was refused so they are public record.
 
MMMM y'all don't have much farther to go and this will be Michael's personal finances, let's not get invasive.
 
So, have you seen the document?:happy:
Click to expand...

personally i havnt no.im not near enough to the court house to go get them but i know ppl who have and i know and respect them. and have no reason to disbelieve them.they arent haters or journos but fans who wanted the facts. maybe ask posters such as aveeno to go into detail they have or have seen the docs.
 
elusive moonwalker said:
personally i havnt no.im not near enough to the court house to go get them but i know ppl who have and i know and respect them. and have no reason to disbelieve them.they arent haters or journos but fans who wanted the facts. maybe ask posters such as aveeno to go into detail they have or have seen the docs.
Click to expand...
If you are talking about the one that was examined to bits on a certain other board then I saw it too. There were no place on that article that showed anything that the media been claiming. What I got out of it was that the same offer to buy 25% was also offered to Sony, and that it was a termly cyclical thing. They both had the same conditions and that Sony owed the exact amount that MJ owed. Which is why I aways maintained that the debt was a business debt and not a private debt. I believed that both Sony and MJ borrowed equal amout of money for the business, this is why both of them used their Sony/Atv as collateral and this is why Sony was involved in the refinancing,. amnd for no other reason.
I also believed that they borrowed the money separately, cause it was the only way they could get the maximum amout they needed. More sony catalogue was bought around the same time of the loan.
If I am right, and the loan is a Business loan, then it is the business that will pay back the money, which is exactly what is happening here, and not Michael Jackson. In other words, it is the business that owes the money, and not Michael jackson, the person. I have always believed this to be true and I have not seen anything to shift my belief.^_^
 
Last edited:
If you are talking about the one that was examinrf to bits on a certaoin other board then I saqw it too. There were no place on that article that showed anything that the media been claiming
Click to expand...

i not sure i dont think its that cause there was no article only info posted by those who went and got the documents such as avenno. and posted what the whole thing was about..that was different to your opinion on the docs so i presume its not the same thing. ill ask them to clarify if they are about
 
elusive moonwalker said:
i not sure i dont think its that cause there was no article only info posted by those who went and got the documents such as avenno. and posted what the whole thing was about..that was different to your opinion on the docs so i presume its not the same thing. ill ask them to clarify if they are about
Click to expand...
OK then. Please keep me informed.:)
 
Datsymay said:
Densir, Michael jackson is not a share-holder of Sony/Atv. MJ is the sole owner of ATV, None of that is floated on the stock market. Sony's company is a shareholding company, sony is share holder, not Michael. Do not get it mixed up. They are 2 different companies that has a merger. If MJ is working in any capacity in the business, he will demand a salary for that job.
Click to expand...

There is no ATV MP since late 1995; so Michael is co-owner of Sony/ATV MP, which is single entity that was created from merge of ATV MP and SMP (Sony Music Publishing).

As co-owner, Jackson does not earn any salary; only dividends, if ones are decided to be given (by himself and Sony as shareholders). Since Michael is not executive, other way than receiving dividends could be the case if he is hired as "consultant" for the company. But we did not have such information either.
 
Last edited:
denisrs said:
There is no ATV MP since late 1995; so Michael Jackson is co-owner of Sony/ATV MP.

As co-owner, he does not earn any salary; only dividends, if ones are decided to be given (by himself and Sony). Since Jackson is not executive, other way that receiving dividends could be the case if he is hired as "consultant" for the company. But we did not have such information either.
Click to expand...
If you read what I said carefully you will see that I know that MJ is co- owner of Sony/ATV. I did not dispute that. I also said that there are 2 ways that MJ can earn money from the company. The first is by his profit that he makes. This he will make without doing anything at all. The 2nd is by being an active consultant/executive of the company and being paid for that job. I also said that I believe MJ is doing just that cause it was leaked that Sony would pay MJ an annual salary.
I made a distinction between Sony and Atv because it is Sony that has shareholders, not Atv. MJ is the sole owner of Atv, Sony is owed by shareholders. MJ does not earn dividends, only shareholders do.^_^
When Sony and Atv divide there profits 50/50, MJ will keep all of his. Sony will now have to divide theirs between all its shareholders. That is what dividends is, like dividing the shares up.
 
Last edited:
Datsymay said:
Michael jackson is not a share-holder of Sony/Atv
Click to expand...

What I meant is that situation is exact opposite to that statement: Michael Jackson is shareholder of Sony/ATV MP.

Also, being executive and consultant are totally different things; if "consultant" would be named in the first place, of course there would be no reason to discuss thing except for that information was a leak and not official (but we have very little information official anyway, so it would be much critical).

I made a distinction between Sony and Atv because it is Sony that has shareholders, not Atv. MJ is the sole owner of Atv, Sony is owed by shareholders. MJ does not earn dividends, only shareholders do.:happy:
When Sony and Atv divide there profits 50/50, MJ will keep all of his. Sony will now have to divide theirs between all its shareholders. That is what dividends is, like dividing the shares up.
Click to expand...

That could confuse side reader. Sony is shareholder of Sony/ATV MP (of course, there are other companies and people who own Japanese Sony itself, but this is irrelevant to our subject). And Michael Jackson is shareholder of Sony/ATV MP (through trust funds).

And Jackson is not sole (or any way) owner of ATV MP since such company does not exist since 1995. When company merges to other company, new single entity is created with no trace of prior two companies. So Michael owns 50% of shares of Sony/ATV MP instead of 100% shares of ATV MP before the late 1995.

I hope everything is clear now. :)
 
What's even more clear is that Jackson could tour and easily earn over 100 million dollars. This would be money that would be his free and clear. However, touring would require Jackson to do what he doesn't enjoy. After spending over 30 years tourng, he's tired of it and we can't blame him. I just hope his financial situation doesn't force him to do something we know he no longer enjoys.
 
Datsmay takes the view that SONY/ATV is a PRIVATE Limited company which means Michael Jackson is a Shareholder and co-owner and a director.
If SONY/ATV is a PRIVATE entity as opposed to Public company, it's only shareholders are Michael Jackson and Sony et al.
At the end of the accounting year SONY/ATV decides how much goes into director's fee. The rest of the operating profit after tax and interest gets ploughed back to the company for operating capital and reserve. Funds for purchasing new catalogs can be drawn from here and some from bank loans. If Michael draws 8 Million, Sony et al, can do likewise.
If Michael is a WORKING director, say, he composes music for advertising jingles off and on, he may not be a full time working director, thus not holding any official title, but still works and bring valule to the table, he's still entitled to draw salary maybe lesser than director's fee.
 
tupacavelli4life said:
What's even more clear is that Jackson could tour and easily earn over 100 million dollars. This would be money that would be his free and clear. However, touring would require Jackson to do what he doesn't enjoy. After spending over 30 years tourng, he's tired of it and we can't blame him. I just hope his financial situation doesn't force him to do something we know he no longer enjoys.
Click to expand...
Not a doubt. This is ADDITIONAL income, Michael Jackson the music artist, over and above his co-ownership of SONY/ATV.
 
denisrs said:
What I meant is that situation is exact opposite to that statement: Michael Jackson is shareholder of Sony/ATV MP.

Also, being executive and consultant are totally different things; if "consultant" would be named in the first place, of course there would be no reason to discuss thing except for that information was a leak and not official (but we have very little information official anyway, so it would be much critical).



That could confuse side reader. Sony is shareholder of Sony/ATV MP (of course, there are other companies and people who own Japanese Sony itself, but this is irrelevant to our subject). And Michael Jackson is shareholder of Sony/ATV MP (through trust funds).

And Jackson is not sole (or any way) owner of ATV MP since such company does not exist since 1995. When company merges to other company, new single entity is created with no trace of prior two companies. So Michael owns 50% of shares of Sony/ATV MP instead of 100% shares of ATV MP before the late 1995.

I hope everything is clear now. :)
Click to expand...
DENISRS"Michael Jackson is not a shareholder in Sony/ATV'
Listen. MJ is SOLE owner of ATV> He merged it with sony to make Sony/atv. They are 2 separate company that have a merger. MJ is a partner, with sony, not a shareholder. Share holders are people who have shares in a company. Those shares are bought and sold on the stock market. Sony is a company that has shares on the stock market. It is Sony that has shareholders and not Michael MJ gets paid profit. Sony gets paid dividend. it is called diviended because od the shareholding status.
 
What bothers me with that huge loan is that Mike guaranteed with ATV for taking it. Since he merged ATV with Sony, I don't think it's possible for him to just do that without asking permission from his Sony parteners in the first place. Doesn't seem logic, becuase Sony/Atv it's an entity and they run bussiness together, taking a huge loan just like that, for personal needs or other unrelated business without consulting/obtaining permission from your parteners endangers the whole company.

So if Michael asked for a huge loan on ATV, that means Sony approved. If Sony approved that means that loan was for the whole company, maybe extrainvesting or something... and Sony might have taken a similar amount as loan too, but we don't not know about it.
 
Last edited:
Datsymay: There is no "two separate companies that have merger". Merger happened in 1995 and only one company exists since then.

Michael is shareholder of Sony/ATV MP, please read Sony SEC filings for that. I hope You will not go arguing with SEC filings?

Also, merger as business process has nothing to do with any "partnership" other than creating one company from two which are merged. Shareholders of two initial companies negotiate with each on matter how much shares will each get of newly formed united company. So we have one united single entity with one central office, one CEO, one chain of over 40 offices around the world.

"Partnership" is not a merger, it when two (or more) companies kept as separate entities. Please see Renault-Nissan partnership for that.

Lets not confuse business terms (executive/consultant, merger/partnership) or else we will confuse other readers, what would be better to avoid. :)
 
Last edited:
Tipareth said:
What bothers me with that huge loan is that Mike guaranteed with ATV for taking it. Since he merged ATV with Sony, I don't think it's possible for him to just do that without asking permission from Sony parteners in the first place. Doesn't seem logic, becuase Sony/Atv it's an entity and they run bussiness together, taking a huge loan just like that without consulting/obtaining permission from your parteners endangers the whole company.

So if Michael asked for a huge loan on ATV, that means Sony approved. If Sony approved that means that loan was for the whole company, maybe extrainvesting or something ?
Click to expand...
Hi Cecilia:D
This is the whole argument I have been making, yet people want to go the media way, as if the media would say that the loan was a company loan. What would Mj be doing with such a large loan, if it wasn't for the company. The whole version told in tabloids make no sense.
What does make sense however, is that both MJ and sony took out separate loans for purposes of buying more catalogues. Both Sony and MJ guaranteed each others loans, using the asset of the company. Because the loans were quaranteed by both sides, both were at the meeting for refinancing and both agreed on a repayment scheme, which of course is being paid back by the company.
It is a a matter of interpretation, and of course, even if the media knew that the loan was for the company, they would still have lied about it and say that MJ borrowed the money to go on a sending spree.:mello:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top