helena1247;3814812 said:
I hoped you would appreciate my honesty in stating pointblank that as a result of my study of AEG/MJ papers I am openly negative towards AEG.
I have no problems with you being openly negative towards AEG as I said at the end of the day I have no horse in this race and I don't care how it ends.
To me it's kinda hypocritical that you have issues with people being openly negative towards Jacksons. Why is it okay for you to be openly negative to AEG and why can't others be openly against Jacksons? Unless you are coming up with a rule that says people
must be for Jacksons? As I have been on this forum for a long time, what I was trying to say to you it doesn't work like that. There are people that are against AEG, there will be people that are against Jacksons.
You were so sure that other tour promoters do the same that I thought you had seen their tour documents, and therefore asked for them, but if you have no other contracts how would you know that AEG’s contract is no different than the others?
(Why isn’t anyone here resentful of the fact that Michael was to cover ALL production costs? Salary to staff, transportation, accommodation, taxes, etc.? Do you consider it normal?)
I have seen other contracts even from music circles but of course it would have been unethical for me to copy them so I don't have copies of them to send. I have seen groups to be responsible for all of their recording costs, I have seen groups being responsible for even venue rent costs and so on. I have also seen the opposite in which the recording companies pay for all of the recording costs. I have seen tours with major corporate sponsors who paid for every single cost + guaranteed payments to the band. I have also seen a mini tour that the band themselves financed - meaning paying every single cost for every single person and venue and insurance and so on - which ended in a loss. So yeah I consider it "normal". The only thing as I said it to you before as well, perhaps I would not expect it to see for an artist at Michael's caliber. But the answer is also simple : there was no "sponsor" on this tour to cover the costs and AEG is actually a "promoter". With no sponsor the costs were left to Michael, AEG as a promoter main job was to promote the tour, they never intended to finance the costs , they just advanced the costs to Michael.
And if Michael as an individual is to answer for the default in payment by all his individual assets this opens way to his catalog.
So the advances make $40mln. In case Michael did not pay back at once, all assets of his company were to become AEG’s. No bankruptcy could save Michael from the need to pay (this was specially stipulated by AEG).
The contract was also opening access to Michael’s Individual assets, and this means the catalogs
Here's the point you are missing. Catalogs aren't Michael's individual assets. They aren't owned by "Michael Jackson". You need to read the Prescient lawsuit. In a short summary Prescient was brought in by Randy Jackson to refinance Michael's catalogs back in 2005. Michael went with another company and Prescient sued Michael for the promised 10% fee. In their lawsuit they extensively complain about how Michael's catalogs ownership were moved to 2 trusts (and not Michael) and how this avoided their ability to recover their costs.
So again those catalogs were and still are in "bankruptcy remote trusts" and weren't an individual asset for Michael. Similarly all of Michael's assets were owned by 30 different entities and trusts. The only individual asset was Hayvenhurst I believe.
The matter of the date itself is not that important. The urgency that was driving Conrad Murray the night Michael died was still there – even if it was July 6th it was still pretty tight if the weekends are off. The facts still remained the same: 1) Murray was acting on AEG’s orders 2) the second medical examination was due very soon 3) this examination was not stipulated by the first insurance policy for 10 dates only.
To me it is important because you speculated that Murray was filling out insurance forms rather than looking after Michael. As far as we can see form the criminal trial this is not necessarily true. Murray sent a short email to insurance broker saying Michael did not authorize him to share his medical records and he was chatting away with his stripper girlfriends - which I'm pretty sure wasn't on AEG's orders.
Of course Lloyds provided the court with the final variant only.
you know that in US law requires the parties to write the full timeline of events right? If Lloyds had a another insurance earlier and did not mention it in the "background" section, then either Lloyds is lying or there wasn't another insurance policy.
elusive moonwalker;3814824 said:
I have to say its strange how when its shown mj would not lose the cats and everything according to the contract if he cancelled but would have owed production costs etc like any other contract that the argument then changes to well he would have had to sell the cats to pay it back. thats very different than saying it was written in the contract that he would have to hand them over. mj would have owed 35 mill? thi.k i read that figure.Ivy please correct if im wrong. how mj would have decided to pay back that money would have been upto him but certainly no one would have made him sell the cat and if he hadnt sold it to pay off 200 mill plus loans then i doubt he would have sold it to pay off a figure that compaired was measley
See the issue is here - according to me - people are going 20 to 100 steps ahead and making a whole a lot of specualtion.
Assuming concerts were cancelled yes Michael would be responsible for the costs. But AEG couldn't just go in and start getting his assets. There were multiple steps and those are written on the contract including giving him multiple notices and so on.
Furthermore as I said majority of his assets were protected. Also a debt doesn't mean you can easily go after the assets and collect it. For example Segye Times which have given Jacksons $4 Million dollars spent 2 decades trying to collect it. Still to this date they could only collect Katherine's share just because Estate willingly paid it. So just because Michael could have been in debt to AEG, doesn't mean AEG could have gone around saying "mine, mine , mine" to Michael's assets.
Also even a lawsuit was filed and asked court for an order to collect the debt, selling assets is not the first route. That's the law. A court will first consider any income stream and/or selling an asset that is closer to the amount of debt. In other words court can establish a payment plan (such as 40% of your income for the next 20 years) or repossess a comparative assets such as if a car can cover the debt they would get the car and not your house. For example when Latoya declared bankruptcy court took over her royalty revenues - not any of her houses. Similarly Michael had a multi million dollar revenue stream from his own song royalties. Court simply could have ordered Michael's royalty payments go to AEG for several years to cover the debt.
Finally even if the catalog required to be sold and even if the catalog could have been removed from a bankruptcy remote trust - which is unlikely IMO- AEG could have only gotten what is owed to them not a cent more. So if we are to think Michael's share in catalog was $500 Million minus loan on it minus what he might owe to AEG, Michael would still be left with millions of dollars so he wouldn't be on the streets with nothing.
This is what I have issue with mainly. I think Helena is going 100 steps forward and making assumptions which might have never come true in real life.
helena1247;3814843 said:
But why should I believe AEG and not the version of Michael Jackson’s mother?? Your choice of AEG over Katherine betrays your own preferences.
Please pay more attention: I did not state which one I believe. I did not form a definitive opinion. I'm open to read what both sides say and I'm willing to consider AEG's willingness to submit the judge a copy of the deposition and say "here judge see it yourself that we weren't aggressive with Prince" . You aren't even giving them this chance.
You yourself are calling on me to be unbiased towards AEG. If you keep to the position of total neutrality why don’t you remind each and everybody here that they should be unbiased towards Katherine too?
Again you are misunderstanding my replies to you. As I pointed out in this post as well I absolutely no problems with you being against AEG. I just think as you are against AEG, calling out other people for being against Jacksons is hypocritical. If you can be against any party so can anyone.
In that text I specifically did not mention a single name or even the name of the forum in order not to insult anyone. If you recognized yourself among “the brainwashed”, “those knowing what they are doing” or even “AEG collaborators”, it is your choice, not mine.
I reserve for myself the right to express (in my blog) my views about what is going on in the fan base as regards the AEG trial and will continue to do it in the general form as long as I am given a chance to express my views here.
Let me tell you what I think honestly. You are on this forum, all of your posts have been approved. We are having a discussion here. I would expect any mature adult to discuss any issues they might have with me, any other stuff or MJJC, directly with us. I consider people talking about us behind our back (in a medium we aren't reading or a part of ) as disrespectful. We have only become aware of your post because someone copied it here.
So I would request if you have any issues with us then be an adult and talk to us directly - either on our forums, through private messages or through email.
However if you would come here and say to our face "what a nice place" and then go back to your blog and write negative stuff about us, we personally prefer that everyone stays on their respective forums/blogs and not interact with each other.
