Sunday, March 28, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
WOULD SONY BE SONY WITHOUT THRILLER???
It's just a matter of opinion, but most would agree that it was because of the success of Michael Jackson's "Thriller" which in 1982, was the biggest selling album of all time with confirmed sales of 47 million copies worldwide and Michael Jackson being the First Artist to Generate Seven Top Ten Hits on one album, "Thriller", why wouldn't Sony help Michael Jackson out in his time of need?
It's said that when Michael Jackson was in serious financial debt, he went to Sony and asked if they would buy back a portion of his stake in the Company, you know, the Beatles Catalog estimated value worth $1 Billion dollars? And, being in debt, he could refinance and liquidate a few shares here and there and pay his debts and start, anew.
It's said that when Michael Jackson was in serious financial debt, he went to Sony and asked if they would buy back a portion of his stake in the Company, you know, the Beatles Catalog estimated value worth $1 Billion dollars? And, being in debt, he could refinance and liquidate a few shares here and there and pay his debts and start, anew.
All the Sony Corporation did for Michael Jackson was to secure a debt consolidation loan, you know how they lump all your debt into a new loan pay and you pay the bank only one monthly payment which, with his liftstyle, the money was probably gone in a few months. So therefore, Sony apparently, reneged on the agreement with Michael Jackson and didn't buy back any of his stock (it would have been a nice chunk of cash, too.) or help our sweet Michael Jackson who was swimming deep in debt. Must I remind anyone of you of the long tenure the Jacksons had with Epic Records? Did someone at the top of Sony HATE Michael Jackson? Any fan would know that Tommy Mattola was not the head of Sony in 2005/2006. When Michael Jackson wanted to refinance, Tommy Mattola had previously spent 15 years as head of Sony who by the way now, is being run by a spanish singer from the U.K.
And, its my understanding that when people have shares or stock in a company that they can usually liquidate their assets with potentially only some type of monetary penalty and that's all. That's the fun of having stocks and bonds (that's another subject), being able to liquidate at will.
Nevertheless, why did Sony only arrange for another loan for Michael Jackson with Fortress Investments, is beyond me. From the looks of things, Michael Jackson didn't need a loan, he needed cash money. He would have secured the money with his shares from the Beatles catalog so, what would they have had to lose?
If Sony would have just relinquished MJ's shares, he might still be alive today.
Debt can make people very sick and make them want to jump off of the bridge and die.
Who's going to answer to the call "when I was sick, you didn't help me, when I was needy, you didn't clothe me and when I was hungry you didn't feed me"?
Lastly, recently, why did the other Jackson's sign with Sony to release new MJ's songs, after what Sony did to their brother? From the looks of it, most of those acts don't even acquire any work, anyway. Lucky for Janet, she actually seems to be the smartest.
Good luck with that!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
