Wednesday, July 1, 2009

UPDATE: Michael Jackson

Lard have mercy Your Mama is ready for all this Michael Jackson madness to come to a swift conclusion. However, in the interest of seeing something through to the bitter end (and, if we may be honest, keeping up with the Jones') we got a bit more 411 on what is to become of the Holmby Hills Estate where Mister Jackson met his untimely if not entirely surprising end.

According to the peeps at gossip juggernaut TMZ, who seem to have a direct line to all things Michael Jackson, the 3-story, 7 bedroom and 13 terlit mansion on N. Carolwood Drive is to be leased to fashion dee-ziner Christian Audigier.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the estate is currently owned by clothing manufacturer Hubert Guez who is, ta-da!, the CEO of Ed Hardy, one of the several flashy brands created by Mister Audigier. Apparently Mister Audigier is going to move his offices into the building. Your Mama hopes the property is zoned for business.

No word on what Mister Audigier will be paying (and frankly we do not care a lick), but it has been widely reported that Mister Jackson was paying a breath taking $100,000 per month. Maybe he expired after getting the rent bill.

47 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think that the authorities should check those attic dormer rooms for any young boys who might still be chained up there!

Anonymous said...

it's sort of pretty like a Relais et Chateaux hotel is-- but I would feel uncomfortable living in it in the same way I'd feel uncomfortable having sex with Madonna-- cooties

Dee said...

Mama, it is well known by this time that MJ was being blindsided, bamboozled and bilked by the latest 'mafia' ring to leave their boots outside the front door. No way the house is worth that much in rent but MJ had no idea about those things. The inside gossip was that most of that $100k monthly rent check was finding its kick-back way back home if you know what I mean but not into MJ's coffers of course.

Anonymous said...

Your in idiot if you think this place was worth $100k rent. Its a $25-40m house. While its a waste of money to pay so much for rent... Its still a realistic amount for said valued property

Anonymous said...

That was suppose to be wasn't

Anonymous said...

What was?

Anonymous said...

Even though Dee previously said she didn't have time to fritter away posting on Mama's blog, I regretfully see she's still frittering her time away!!

Anonymous said...

I dont get it how is Audiger going to run a business in this palatial home really seems a waste for such a beautiful property to stunk up ed hardy douche merchandise.

DeePocketChoker said...

Did you read the Los Angeles Mag story on that Audigier? He has a video guy taping everything he does
24/7, then he sits back at night with a cocktail and watches the playback.
What class...

Anonymous said...

Ed Hardy sucks. There is nothing creative or original about it. The property is NOT zoned commercial so good luck with that.

frexaess said...

There is a new scam that just came to light

Apparently there were 2 parties (corporations) that had billions maybe even trillions at their disposal and they were selling properties back and forth to each other to drive the price of real estate up over the last 8 years and Goldman Sachs is in the middle of it, what a surprise, anyway that drove the real estate prices up 2000% in the last 10 years,

now......

The govt is passing a law that will make the Goldman Sachs dealings classified

so with that said this estate is worth what is was worth before this new scam

5 MM maybe even less

and in 5 years time you will see many other homes, estates, penthouses drop far far below their listing prices, just like that 750MM casa in france that is now valued at 45MM and is still dropping in value as there are still no takers

frexaess said...

I wished I could work for Goldman Sachs

Article:

The Exchange has filed with the SEC to implement the decommissioning of the DPTRrequirement following the July 10, 2009 trade date. Accordingly, the last required submission of the DPTR will be on July 14, 2009, which is the second business day after the last trade date for which the DPTR is required.

Go read the entire Zerohedge article; what this means, in short, is that the ability of people (like you and I) to see the fact that a handful of banks, most specifically Goldman Sachs, constitute the majority of NYSE trading volume - and they're trading for their own book, not for customers, will no longer be disclosed.

This "back and forth trade" between a handful of institutions is nothing more than the old "pump and dump" game that has been played in the OTC market forever - and almost always screws the individual investor.

This is no different than you and I selling a house back and forth between us repeatedly, each time at a higher price. We both appear to be geniuses as we're both making a "profit", right?

Well, no. One of us is destined to take a horrifying loss if we do not find a sucker to make the final transaction with.

The embedded scam is that real gains require real parties at interest and not a closed system of a couple of guys passing an asset back and forth in a transparent attempt to "bait" someone else into becoming the sucker to offload that asset to.

The parallels to the housing bubble are not coincidence. There is no "value" being created nor is there any actual value appreciation taking place when people pass an asset back and forth at ever-higher prices. Only when there are lots of parties participating on their own, organically, does a market truly exist and does value align with price. Otherwise the so-called "price" is nothing other than a cheap parlor trick.

Zerohedge has been documenting this game now for months as Goldman in particular has come to represent an outrageously large percentage of the entire NYSE volume.

Anonymous said...

"fashion designer" & "Christian Audigier" CANNOT be used in the same sentence!

Why do you think he had to leave Europe & come here to sell his crap? Europeans wouldn't be seen dead in it!

I'm also convinced he's not French, no Frenchman has such bad taste. I'm convinced he's from Texas & just puts on the french accent to make himself more interesting.

Anonymous said...

That house is not worth $100,000 monthly rent. The prices of real estate are dropping continuously. I love how everyone posts here like they know what they're talking about! lol

Anonymous said...

I like the outside of the house. The entry/portico thing is a little over the top, but the house is very symentric and has nicely shaped/proportioned windows, and is very pretty with a definite French influence. Not a bad job.

Anonymous said...

100000 a month seems reasonable to me...the house was on the market for 38mm...lets assume that it would sell for 20mm instead, or be really conservative and say 15mm.

Thats 190000/yr in real estate taxes, gardiners, insurance, upkeep probably add at least 100000 more per year on average. if you can get an 8% return on 15mm, thats 1200000 you'd be generating in income/cap gains...it's cheaper to rent than to buy, at least right now. borrowing 15mm would cost you a minimum of 6%, probably more, so that's 100000/month right there.

Anonymous said...

The cold truth is that Michael Jackson's finances are in better shape now that he's dead. When MJ first got this place, his ability (or willingness) to pay for it was questionable.

Perhaps the rental price reflected this? If the owners thought they might have to sue to collect any money, maybe this fact was taken into account from minute one.

After attorneys fees, a settlement discount, and interest, the owners would probably end up with amount more like what the children feel is fair market value.

And if MJ ended up actually PAYING the posted rent in a timely manner, then it's a bonus for taking the risk.

Anonymous said...

If any of these machinations actually occurred, that means that the rental amount was based on risk rather than actual market value which I think is what people have been saying. The house is NOT WORTH $100k in this market. Whether or not MJ was a bad credit risk is incidental.

Anonymous said...

Jackson is worth more dead than alive...Not saying that's a good reason for him to be dead, just saying his estate will reap the benefits of his fans fanaticism for his music and memorobilia...

which is a good thing, because after his huge debt is paid, to sony and all the other creditors, and all the estate and death taxes are paid (I'm not an acct. but won't that eat up a lot?) there's not going to be that much...

It might be a lot to regular people, but not a lot compared to the money he's earned in his lifetime. I'm guessing there will be less than $50M left unless he's got money stashed off shore, which i sorta doubt.

Keep in mind that even if his estate's income is $20-30M a year (and he was getting guranteed $11m/year from sony so it's possible), he was servicing $3-400M in debt.

Take the 20 or 30M, remove the taxes, pay his "managers" and leeches and there's probably not enought left to maintain his lifestyle and service that debt...which is obvious because why else would he be in $300+M in debt if he wasn't spending more than he was bringing in?

Imagine what he had to come up with every month/year to service his debt...it's staggering.

angeleyes said...

Very nice photo of this home. The fully lit facade against a twilight backdrop is striking. Since the owners haven't been able to sell it, I think leasing it out was a wise decision. It's location surrounded on 3 sides by public streets naturally lends itself more to being used as a rental property than a permanent residence anyways imo.

TLR said...

There is no doubt Jackson was philanthropic but that Guinness record is for the most number of charities...not the most amount of money donated.

http://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/113-michael-jackson

http://www.looktothestars.org/news/1268-giving-back-fund-announces-top-30-celebrity-givers

As far as I know, Jackson is not at the top of any list of top donors by amount donated.

I'm not taking away from what he did do because he clearly cared about philanthropic causes, I'm saying let's be accurate about what's being said.

Anonymous said...

Wrong article 9:32. You're in such a frenzy to diminish Jackson any way you can, you're tripping over your own browsers. Puhleeze get over it.

Anonymous said...

My need to diminish him is only matched by so many people's inexplicable need to deify him.

I'm willing to be wrong, so can you show me where it was reported he was a top giver or that he gave $300M to charity?

The only places I find that figure on on MJ fan sites and Wikipedia and there is no sourcing for that number on Wikipedia and, of course, Wikipedia information can be added, altered or faked by anyone.

Just show me where that's reported in a reputable publication and I'll eat my words. Promise.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:10

http://philanthropy.com/giveandtake/index.php?id=1099

would you like fries with that or should I just stuff your words back down your throat?

Anonymous said...

Did you read that article?

First of all it actually says what I said earlier...the Guinness record (2000 edition) is for the “Most Charities Supported by a Pop Star.” and NOT a record for the amount of money or time he gave.

Secondly, nowhere here in this article does it say he gave $300M or any other amount of money for that matter. I'm sure what he gave was considerable but was it $300M? I don't know.

Thirdly, the article is not entirely flattering to Jackson and raises questions about whether he earned money from the charity singles he released. (I have no idea whether he did or not and I am in now way saying he did. I do not know).

Again, I'm not taking away from what he did do, just saying that there should be an accurate record of what he did do rather than having his "fans" toss out arbitrary numbers and statements about these things.

Anonymous said...

VIDEO: Inside The Room Michael Jackson Died In

www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/07/video-inside-room-michael-jackson-died

Anonymous said...

OK so you're one of those anal retentive types who want every cent accounted for, is that it? Tell me, how much did YOU contribute last month? I'm betting it's a big fat ZERO like yourself.

Anonymous said...

The house is right ON Sunset Blvd. although the entrance is from the side street Carolwood that goes off Sunset to the north. I don't know how noisy Sunset is along that stretch, but I am sure you could hear the traffic from the house. Not a prime location.

Doc Hollywood said...

http://www.showbiz411.com/michael-jackson-funeral-date-set-at-staples-center

Anonymous said...

No. I don't want every cent accounted for. Just an accurate ball park from a reputable source. How about that? Is that really so much to ask for?

Plus, you skip right past all the times I've said that I'm not looking to take anything away from the philanthropic work that Jackson did do. He did a lot. He's to be commended for that.

My real beef is not with how much Jackson did or did not give away. Its with people who defend him and elevate him to god like status without using even a shred of critical thinking about who he actually was or what he actually did.

Name calling and insulting me is the last vestige of someone who has run out of logic.

Anonymous said...

A house is *worth* whatever someone is willing to pay for it, or in this case, rent it for.

It may not be *worth* it to those whining about the 100k..although I doubt any of you could *afford* 100k in rent...but the reality is the house was leased by Jackson for 100k.

So it was *worth* 100k per month.

Shakira said...

Why don't you start with "We are the World"? Figure out how much money went to charity from that one recording alone. That's your homework for tonight.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't pay $100k to rent that paean to conspicuous consumption.

Anonymous said...

Listen up people.

A house is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If someone was willing to lease this house for 100.000 a month, it was worth 100.000 a month, this does not mean they will get that amount from someone else. On the flip side, just because that Wynn person decided he crappy poorly thought out mess of a apartment in new york is worth 25 million, that does not mean someone will pay 25 million for it.

Anonymous said...

Christian Audigier is obsessed with Michael Jackson. He has already plastered we missed you and Michael Jacksonover his entire store in LA..Hmmm I wonder...

Rianna said...

How does that make him obsessed? Maybe it's just his way of paying respects. Sheesh.

Anonymous said...

What hateful comments on this blog.

Anonymous said...

mr Audigier's moving in this house is just cheaper for both mr Guez and mr Audigier; their business ventures are hurting big time.
btw MJ never paid 100.000 dollars monthly rent for this, it is obviously an L.A. celeb style kind of exaggeration.. in the sense that the more one pays, the better it must be.

Anonymous said...

How do you or any one know what Jackson was really paying?

I'm sure it'll come out because believe you me, his finances and expenses are going to be looked at through a microscope.

I wonder if Guez will sue the estate for the remainder of the lease. That would be tacky though, right?

Anonymous said...

Since Jackson leased the house for while he was rehearsing in LA, and he was packing to leave for London to start the tour at the time of his death, I suspect the lease was almost over.

Anonymous said...

The LAPD are being investigated now for not sealing the gates and doors to that place until 4 days after Jackson died.

Anonymous said...

Christian Audigier and Michael Jackson went into business together a year ago to produce a clothing line. A source told Life & Style, “It’s still in the developing stages, but it’s going to be big. This will be a major comeback for Michael. He’s dedicating a lot of his time and money to this venture.”

Doc Hollywood said...

That is an OK neighborhood but is indicative of how far Jackson's star fell. The neighbors are a bunch of cranks.

Anonymous said...

The road was closed off when I tried to take a drive past the rental. Boo.

Anonymous said...

The block of Carolwood in front of the estate has been closed since the day he died.

It is right across Sunset from Owlwood. Owlwood's last selling price was over 40 million (for the original Owlwood property, the former Ester William home, and the Jane Mansfield aka Pink Palace). They then spend quite a bit more to renovate Owlwood, remove the other two houses, and make the cul du sac part of their driveway. Hardly the crappy neighborhood some are claiming it to be.

Anonymous said...

MJ was paying $100K a month for a house that should've rented for $25-30. This partly explains where his money went. The vultures killed their golden goose. They pushed him into 50 concert dates that he had no hope of completing (let alone starting) so that he would make even more money for them to spend. Vultures, every one.

RIP MJ. GONE TOO SOON.

Anonymous said...

Hey Mama, I just thought you should know that this property is back up for lease for.... $300,000 fucking dollars a month!!! It is a fully furnished lease that includes a maid and security guard (for those crazy fans).

I can't believe how the owner of this house is trying to capitalize on Michael's death. It wasn't even worth the $100,000/month Michael was paying for it, this is outrageous.

RIP MJ

Here's the listing;
http://guests.themls.com/profile_page.cfm?mls=10-445229&tab=search