Even in death, Michael Jackson is breaking new records.  The King of Pop’s estate has signed the biggest recording deal in history: a $200 million guaranteed contract with Sony Music Entertainment for 10 projects over seven years, according to a person familiar with the deal.  The record-breaking contract through 2017 could be worth up to $250 million if certain conditions are met.  One of the albums will be of never-before-released Jackson recordings that will come out in November, the person said.  The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the official announcement is expected later Tuesday. 

Future projects may also include a video game, a DVD compilation of videos and a rerelease of “Off the Wall,” Jackson’s fifth studio album, which first came out in 1979, accompanied by some unreleased material.  Before his sudden death in June at age 50, the pop star had wanted to reissue the album, people familiar with the deal said.  One of the projects already counted in the contract was the two-disc album that accompanied “This Is It,” the film based on footage of concert rehearsals for what was to have been Jackson’s comeback at London’s O2 arena.  Including the more than 5 million copies of that special release, Jackson has sold some 31 million albums since his death, about two-thirds of them outside the United States. 

“During his life, Michael’s contracts set the standard for the industry,” said John Branca, the co-administrator of the Jackson estate, in a statement prepared for release Tuesday.  “By all objective criteria, this agreement with Sony Music demonstrates the lasting power of Michael’s music by exceeding all previous industry benchmarks.”  Rob Stringer, chairman of Sony Music’s Columbia Epic Label Group, said in prepared remarks, “We’re dedicated to protecting this icon’s legacy and we’re thrilled that we can continue to bring his music to the world for the foreseeable future.” 

The landmark deal is worth more than all other benchmarks, such as the all-encompassing rights deals that concert promoter and ticket-seller Live Nation Entertainment Inc. had previously signed with Madonna at $120 million and Jay-Z for $150 million. Jackson’s deal is even more remarkable because it does not include royalties from merchandise.  The contract shows the value of legacy artists.  It also comes at a time of decline for the music industry, with sales down about half from their peak in 2000 mainly due to free file-swapping.  The money will go a long way to settling Jackson’s debts, estimated at around $400 million when he died.

But the singer whose life was plagued with scandal has had a resurgence in popularity in death.  Distribution rights for “This Is It” were sold to Sony Pictures, another unit of Sony Corp., for $60 million and the movie went on to gross $252 million worldwide, the most of any concert film ever.  Revenue from that, song sales and merchandising agreements brought into the estate revenues of about $100 million, lawyers for the estate’s administrators told a Los Angeles Superior Court judge in December, when they sought a percentage as an administration fee.  The Walt Disney Co. even brought back the 17-minute Jackson movie “Captain EO” to its Disneyland theme park in Anaheim last month.  The original began running at the park in 1986 but was pulled in 1997. 

Jackson’s most lasting and valuable asset is the 50 percent stake in Sony/ATV Music Publishing, a company that owns publishing rights to music by The Beatles and numerous other artists, including Elvis Presley and Bob Dylan.  Split with Sony Music, the copyright catalog itself is estimated to be worth $2 billion.  The new financial windfall comes even as circumstances around his death remain in legal limbo.  Dr. Conrad Murray faces an involuntary manslaughter charge for allegedly giving Jackson a lethal combination of sedatives.  He is due back in a Los Angeles court April 5.

 The downward shift in salaries is partly a result of NFL owners no longer being frightened by the lack of a salary cap. Instead, they now welcome the change with open arms.   Or at least as much money as they can get their arms around.

 As the NFL prepares to go with an uncapped 2010 season for the first time since 1993, owners stand to save a fortune this year on player costs. That’s because with the exception of a handful of players like defensive end Julius Peppers(notes), linebacker Karlos Dansby(notes) and cornerback Dunta Robinson(notes), there are very few free agents worth buying. Even more, there are fewer players eligible to cash in as unrestricted free agents.

Based on a rough estimate of expected player costs, NFL teams will spend at least $500 million less than they were required to spend in 2009.

 While there will still be some high spenders, such as the Oakland Raiders, Dallas Cowboys and Indianapolis Colts, the reality is that many teams will save more than $20 million on player salaries for next season. Approximately one-third of the teams in the NFL will spend less than $100 million on salaries. That’s a huge drop in a league where the minimum teams could spend last year was $112 million.

 That’s for two reasons. In addition to the elimination of a maximum ($128 million in ’09) and minimum that franchises could allocate on their rosters, the change in the rules regarding free agency (it takes six years to become unrestricted instead of four) means there are a significant number of players who won’t be free agents. The likes of Merriman, wide receiver Braylon Edwards(notes) and offensive tackle Jammal Brown(notes) will be restricted rather than unrestricted free agents, making it harder for them to cash-in with large long-term contracts.

 With so few quality players available as unrestricted free agents this year, a large number of teams could drastically reduce how much they spend on player salaries. Five NFL executives and NFLPA sources estimated that somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 teams could easily spend less than $100 million on player salaries.

 As of this week, 17 of the NFL’s 32 teams had allocated less than $100 million toward contracts for next season, according to NFLPA records. The Buffalo Bills, Carolina Panthers, Cincinnati Bengals, Jacksonville Jaguars, Kansas City Chiefs, St. Louis Rams and Tampa Bay Buccaneers each had less than $90 million allocated.

 “If you wanted to be absurd and give one player a $20 million base salary, you could do it, but there’s nobody worth doing that for,” said one team executive, who declined to be identified for fear of being fined by the NFL for talking about the salary cap and the collective bargaining agreement. “If you want to get to the heart of why the owners aren’t worried, this is the reason. They’re all talking to their football people and saying, ‘It’s not worth spending the kind of money we’re talking about to get these mediocre players.’ ”

 The reasons for this are complex and have primarily to do with the fact that while player salaries have increased significantly in recent years, they haven’t kept pace with the increase in the salary cap. In short, there’s more money to spend than ever, but not enough players worth spending it on.

As a result, Baltimore Ravens general manager Ozzie Newsome and others have to set strict guidelines on how they approach free agency and signings.

“Ozzie tells me this all the time,” one highly influential agent said. “At any given time on your team, there are five to eight guys you have to pay whatever it costs to keep them. The rest are just guys that you can pay whatever you think they’re worth.”

 That approach has been reflected in the management style of Colts president Bill Polian and New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick. Baltimore, Indianapolis and New England have been among the most consistently competitive teams of the past decade as a result. Those teams have rarely spent significantly on free agent players, instead choosing to build through the NFL draft or go with cheaper players in free agency.

 At the same time, the salary cap has increased tremendously over the past four years, leading to a situation where salaries couldn’t keep up with the increase in the high end of the cap. Virtually no team has been forced to cut players for salary cap reasons over the past two years.

 “The only time you cut a player now is if he’s just making way too much money and the team doesn’t think he’s worth it,” agent Ben Dogra said. “It’s not about the cap.”

 Subsequently, circumstances on and off the field (mainly the economy) have emboldened owners to play hardball with the union over the CBA. The league has proposed that players take an 18 percent reduction in the amount of money that is shared annually, which could lead to a lockout in 2011.

 In real terms, that works this way, according to the NFLPA. In 2008, the owners and players split a pie of $8 billion in revenue. The first slice is $1 billion that goes to the league and the owner for operational costs, such as the building of stadiums and the NFL Network. From there, the remaining $7 billion is split with 59 percent going to players and the rest going to the owners.

 Under the NFL’s proposal, the first slice would increase to $2.4 billion for operational cost and the amount split between the owners and the players would decrease to $5.6 billion. That’s simply unacceptable to the NFLPA at this point.

 “Do you think I can take a deal back to the players that says take an 18 percent cut?” NFLPA president Kevin Mawae(notes) said, rhetorically. “They’d boot me out and everybody [on the union’s staff] would get fired.”

 The reason the NFL has proposed such a staggering cut is that it has that kind of leverage right now based on player salaries and the rules of the uncapped season. Furthermore, the league isn’t terribly interested in negotiating a new deal right now. While there have been many negotiating sessions between the league and the players over the past 10 months, the sessions are really nothing more than window dressing.

 Both the NFL and the NFLPA must prove that they are negotiating in good faith or face possible penalties in court if the matter ever goes to trial, as it did in the late 1980s and early 1990s.   The end result is that the two sides get together and go nowhere.

 But the bottom line for this season is that free agency is going to be like a really bad office party. Fun for maybe five minutes and then a bunch of standing around.

“On a scale of 1 to 10,” Smith said Thursday, “it’s a 14.”

With that, the union leader painted perhaps the bleakest picture yet regarding prospects of labor strife in the league, which could be looking at a 2010 season with no salary cap and, if the collective bargaining agreement expires as scheduled in March 2011, a lockout that year.

“I keep coming back to an economic model in America that is unparalleled,” said Smith, who often repeated phrases for emphasis. “And that makes it incredibly difficult to then come to players and say, ‘On average, each of you needs to take a $340,000 pay cut to save the National Football League.’ Tough sell. Tough sell.”

Smith said the NFL would receive $5 billion from its network television deals even if no games are played in 2011. He regarded that as proof the owners are preparing for a lockout.

“Has any one of the prior deals included $5 billion to not play football?” Smith asked, referring to previous contracts that were extended or redone. “The answer’s no.”

In an interview in Sirius Radio, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell refuted Smith’s notion that owners are aiming for a lockout.”

“You don’t make money by shutting down your business,” Goodell said. “The idea that the owners want to lock out and not play football is absolutely not the case, that’s just not good for anybody.”

Some of Smith’s nearly hour-long question-and-answer session during Super Bowl week was spent reiterating past claims, such as team values increasing “almost 500 percent” over the last 15 years. There also was a call to have all 32 NFL teams open their books to show who was losing money and how much.

Smith also said he wanted teams to contribute what, ultimately, would be millions into what he called “a legacy fund” that would better support retired players.

Most of his focus, however, was on striking a new labor deal.

“I really and truly in my heart believe we’ll get a deal done,” NFLPA president Kevin Mawae said. “But there’s going to have to be some give and some take and not just taking from one side all the way.”

The league’s response, in part, said that teams such as the Green Bay Packers — whose audited financial statements are the only ones the union said it has seen — have seen a 40 percent decline in profits.

“In most businesses, that would be a serious cause for concern,” said Jeff Pash, the NFL’s executive vice president and chief counsel. “It would indicate a serious issue that has to be dealt with. You look at your single largest expense, which is player costs.”

Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning, whom the team plans to soon give a new contract that would make him the league’s highest-paid player, acknowledged that he has concerns.

“I think as a player, I feel we have a pretty good thing going right now in the NFL,” Manning said Thursday. “It would a shame for something to have to change along those lines. I understand kind of like when a player is holding out or a player contract, there is a business side of this that can be tough. It is not always pretty.”

Smith said the latest NFL offer to the players would reduce their share of applied revenues from about 59 percent to 41 percent. He emphasized that the teams take $1 billion off the top of the estimated $8 billion the league generates.

Pash argued that the $1 billion reflects actual costs incurred, money “invested in things like NFL Network, NFL.com, putting games on overseas, all of which is intended to and has in fact had the effect of generating substantial additional revenues, 50 percent of which go to NFL players. And the union knows that’s true, because the union has absolute rights to audit those expenses.”

Echoing previous statements by Goodell, Pash said Smith’s assertion that players are being asked to accept an 18 percent pay cut — the $340,000 per-player-average figure — was among the “misrepresentations of what our proposal is.”

“We have never said it would result in players having to take a reduction,” Pash said. “The entire point here is to generate a pool of resources to have continued investment and continued growth, which would lead to higher salaries and benefits for players.”

For now, some players say they’re bracing for issues. Mawae, the Tennessee Titans‘ center, said he even has recommended players save 25 percent of their salary next season “in the event of a lockout,” though he noted “we can’t make all 1,900 players save their money.”

“We’ve told them, ‘Don’t go out and buy a new boat. Don’t go out and buy a new car. Pay off whatever debts you have,’ ” Colts center Jeff Saturday said. “These are things we’ve been learning from history.”

Smith and Mawae said that if next season goes forward with no salary cap, it would be highly unlikely to have a new CBA with a cap reinstated.

“Virtually impossible,” Smith said.

“A very difficult task,” Mawae said.

Asked about the owners’ assertion that the 18 percent pay cut request was false, Mawae didn’t hold back.

“That is not true,” he said. “That is absolutely true they’ve asked for 18 percent.”

Meantime, the union is increasing dues for now, with the idea of returning the money as income to players, if needed, during a lockout.

“Our guys get it,” Mawae said. “Our guys understand.”

Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press

Tiger’s sponsors included Nike, Gatorade, Accenture, Buick, Gillete, Tag Heuer, Electronic Arts, and AT&T to name a few.  Now I’m not saying that Tiger won’t go on and continue to make millions of dollars.  Nor am I saying that he should consider filing bankruptcy in the next couple of months.  He most certainly does not have to worry about being broke any time soon.  After all, he’s still the greatest golfer in the world.  So, if all else fails, he can always play golf and make about $12-13 million on the actual PGA tour.   However, the billions of dollars that he made, and was on track to continue to make, are gone like yesterday.  When he does finally return to golf, he’ll still be able to get endorsement deals.  Especially from the companies that focus on the actual sport of golf like Gatorade and Nike, but the companies that relied on Tiger’s squeaky clean image more so than his athletic ability; those are gone.  Gone too is Tiger’s status as the world’s top grossing athlete.  Guess that leaves it wide open for Phil, Lebron, and Floyd…

For first time offenders, it’s a bit of an easier process.  Without a record, the district attorney usually allows for you to serve probation and enter into a drug aversion program and upon there completion, the charge may be dropped off your record. 

However, for those that have been down this path before, it is a bit more difficult to escape without a bit more punishment.  You’re usually looking at a suspended license and may even be required to serve some jail time.  After you’ve served your time, you’ll be placed on probation for a period of time, however all chances of having this charge dropped off your record are out the door. 

The big thing to remember is, don’t consent to a search if you don’t have to, because they WILL find whatever it is your hiding!  If you are pulled over for speeding, make sure the focus remains on ‘speeding’, and not what’s in your glove compartment.

This post is not to be considered as legal authority and it is important that you discuss with a lawyer your options shortly after your arrest.  This will allow him or her maximum time to either gather all the evidence necessary to present to the court or even work out a deal with the court.  Stay safe, and try not to ride dirty if possible- or at least get your taillight fixed.

First, the term of the agreement.  How long will this relationship last?  Is it a fixed period, or do we have an option for more, and if there are options, who gets to decide if those options are exercised?  It is important that both parties are realistic with the time that it will take to really develop a project and for it to gain some traction within your region.  The manager will need time, and sometimes his or her own money, to develop the artist.  The manager obviously sees potential in the artist enough to make a commitment of his or her own resources and should have a vision or plan for achieving the artist’s goals.  However, the agreement should allow the manager a reasonable opportunity to meet the artist’s objectives.  Of course, if the manager is not performing his duties and/or producing the success promised or expected, the artist should be able to terminate the contract within a reasonable period of time.  Given these issues, a typical contract term is one to three years.  Any option to extend the agreement should be mutual after this time.

One way to facilitate the success of a partnership is to negotiate the responsibilities and duties each party in the agreement to be signed.  The parties may include specific duties of the manager, along with detailed performance clauses.  Some contracts may call for performance to be measured only in dollars, so performance clauses may obligate the manager to assure that the artist makes a certain amount of money each year.  Be careful with this because if performance is measured based only on money, other areas may end up being compromised.  Often times it is good to strike some kind of balance with a certain amount of money that must be obtained along with some specific duties outlined. 

Most of the disagreements in a Management Agreement have to do with the compensation involved.  How much will the manager be paid and who will pay for the expenses?  Conflicts sometimes arise when the artist views the manager as simply taking a percentage of their earnings.  Managers are employed by the artist to perform a service, and an effective manager who helps the artist to make money and become more successful should be paid accordingly.  Ultimately, an artist should never think the manager is taking money from them.  They should consider that everyone is working as a team for the success of the business, with each person taking on a specific role.  To limit disputes later, the agreement should specifically set forth what percentage the manager will receive from the artist’s income, and from which income sources this percentage will be calculated.  A manager may receive anywhere from 10 to 20 percent of the artist’s income from all sources including recording, performing, songwriting, merchandise, etc.  To reduce discrepancies, each category should be specifically listed and defined in the agreement so that all parties will understand.  The agreement should also make clear whether the commission will be based on “gross income” or “net income.”

It is also important to realize that just because an artist is able to offer an ultimatum to a manager for him to take a lower commission, that may not be in the artist’s best interest ultimately.  You want to make sure that both parties are putting their 100% effort into making sure that the act is successful, and if there is an unhappy party because of the percentage commission in the contract, the synergy of the work of the artist and the manager won’t reach it’s full capacity.

These are just some of the main points that are included in a Management Agreement.  There are other important clauses that you should definitely have a lawyer review with you before signing.  Never rush into signing an agreement you don’t understand.