Re: Wrongful death lawsuits - Katherine and MJ's kids sue AEG / Murray responds to Joe's lawsuit
all true - I'm not disputing anything you said as well.
Go and read Randy Phillip's and Philip Anschutz statements before Michael's death - how this "worldwide" comeback could bring "$500M" in only ticket sales. The wording on the contract that says "mutually agreed upon legs of show" and Katherine's lawsuit that states " working together to put on a lengthy worldwide concert series" and the multi year contracts with dancers/staff etc all shows that this was planned or hoped to be a multi year long term worldwide project. No arguments there.
For the legs: actually the July 26 - September 30 shows is the first leg of the tour as written on the contract. The 27 concerts during that time period falls under the "pre-approved up to 31 shows" in the contract. The January - March 2010 shows accounts for the second leg of the tour. It's the mutually agreed upon 23 shows of the second leg. (contract says that concert series that has been separated more than 3 weeks is another leg). So actually Michael's 50 TII concerts was already consisted of 2 legs.
I also think that the "minimum number of 18 shows" (believe me those numbers aren't random) mentioned in the contract would be enough to cover the costs of the project just by ticket sales- 23,000 capacity x 18 concerts x $75 for average ticket = $31M . Add to that all the merchandise an broadcast opportunities that's mentioned in the contract. You can see that 18 concerts was the break-even point. Yes the contract gives them the right to recoup their costs but that doesn't equal to adding as much as concerts as they want as long as they want. In any case you would want a contract that protects your investment and that you'll at least break even or become profitable but that doesn't mean that you'll need to use every little provision that you put on the contract.
My point is that it's not a tour in the traditional sense. It's more like a concert series like Katherine's lawsuit describes it. It's a long duration residency which hoped to visit several locations around the world. And that we need to see another residency contract to make sense of who hires and pays people as well as whether it was a good or bad contract.
all true - I'm not disputing anything you said as well.
Go and read Randy Phillip's and Philip Anschutz statements before Michael's death - how this "worldwide" comeback could bring "$500M" in only ticket sales. The wording on the contract that says "mutually agreed upon legs of show" and Katherine's lawsuit that states " working together to put on a lengthy worldwide concert series" and the multi year contracts with dancers/staff etc all shows that this was planned or hoped to be a multi year long term worldwide project. No arguments there.
For the legs: actually the July 26 - September 30 shows is the first leg of the tour as written on the contract. The 27 concerts during that time period falls under the "pre-approved up to 31 shows" in the contract. The January - March 2010 shows accounts for the second leg of the tour. It's the mutually agreed upon 23 shows of the second leg. (contract says that concert series that has been separated more than 3 weeks is another leg). So actually Michael's 50 TII concerts was already consisted of 2 legs.
I also think that the "minimum number of 18 shows" (believe me those numbers aren't random) mentioned in the contract would be enough to cover the costs of the project just by ticket sales- 23,000 capacity x 18 concerts x $75 for average ticket = $31M . Add to that all the merchandise an broadcast opportunities that's mentioned in the contract. You can see that 18 concerts was the break-even point. Yes the contract gives them the right to recoup their costs but that doesn't equal to adding as much as concerts as they want as long as they want. In any case you would want a contract that protects your investment and that you'll at least break even or become profitable but that doesn't mean that you'll need to use every little provision that you put on the contract.
My point is that it's not a tour in the traditional sense. It's more like a concert series like Katherine's lawsuit describes it. It's a long duration residency which hoped to visit several locations around the world. And that we need to see another residency contract to make sense of who hires and pays people as well as whether it was a good or bad contract.
Last edited:
