Lest we condemn Prince too rashly, don't forget that recently he gave a considerable amount of money to help disadvantaged kids in Harlem. This doesn't excuse his behaviour but to say he's a tight bastard is unfair IMO.

powersoul99 said:

vitriol said:

And what entitles you to say so?

I don't know Prince personally. I only read all the quality researches written on him and I can assure he's the kind of person who I couldn't be friends with, let alone 'love'.

I just happened to like his musical output since he definitely lost it circa 2004. But I don't 'love' him. Never did and never will. I have no reason to.

Finally, the reason why I keep on coming back to this site (which is NONE of your business, btw) is precisely because I have fun looking at all the craziness on here. It's other places I use for 'serious' Prince stuff.

What entitles me to say so is the fact that this is a open forum.

And it is so obvious that you are crazy abiout Prince.

You sound off like a jealous lover, what are you hiding?

Prince is going to have to release an album entitled "Winning" and go on twitter. The fist cut off the album needs to be called "Oh, Charlie!"

Doubt he will be wanting to perform in Ireland ever again.

honer said:

There is probably at best a tiny bit of truth in these stories, you are all speculating on media crap written by gossipy sources.

We dont know AND never will know the exact nature of these deals.

Yeah Prince could be being a massive shit over this equally he might have good reason to not be paying, we will never know.

The Irish concert from what I read never had a contract and it was only because some judge decided that a couple of emails amounted to a contract that he got sued, IF you are to belive all the Dublin concert press Prince was not out of order and was forced into a corner, hence perhaps a reason why he could be delaying payment. Its not like he cant afford it, I'm sure he's far too busy making music, doing gigs and shagging fit women to give a rats ass about any of it.

and look at the headline "Prince could loose home" bollocks!

[Edited 3/3/11 5:47am]

This concert was never officially announced, the promoter jumped the gun and put the show on sale before he should have. None of the other shows that were rumored to occur at the same time went on sale, just the Dublin concert.

How is this Prince not paying his bills?

I do think it has taken some special talent though for Prince be able to turn a half million dollar plus pay day into a 3 million dollar loss

What does this guy do with all of his money? Spend it all on hair and clothes? There's no excuse for him not to be paying his bills - especially with those expensive ass tickets!

Militant said:

JustErin said:

That isn't even what I said.

Another thing is that Prince didn't have a contract with Desmond in the first place. The only reason he was found liable was because a judge (in Ireland) made that call at his own discretion. Not every judge would do that.

If there's one thing I know about law,

... it's clearly not about basic contract law.

The evidence produced in court found that Prince was contractualy obliged and he failed to fulfil on a legally binding obligation.

Identity said:

rudedog said:

I blame it on the fact that he does not have an accountant (which he should have) and most likely him 'donating' to his cult is causing him financial hardship. I've seen many of ppl lose their lives due to 'giving their money to God'. Its an addiction.

Prince was developing a reputation for not paying his creditors on time back in the 90s, long before he became a Witness. Should God be blamed for personal financial irresponsibility?

HA! That was his 'Slave' period, during the Gold era, when WB and Prince couldn't agree on the configuration of Gold. That lasted for a couple of years. This, on the other hand, has happened for a decade.

Let me be clear, not blaming God, blaming his obsession on the cult he's in. I would have to believe in God to blame him

whoa nelly!!! can't we all just get along? don't think prince will lose his home; unless he choses to(and i'd bet all my $$ he'd have a spare) but that is just an opinion of someone who may or may not have had a relationship with him that believes he can make jacked-up (okay really jacked-up) decisions from time to time even though he knows his business gets put on blast. though i may or may not have first-hand knowledge that prince may make decisions based on less than linear or right-minded thought, i won't vilify him cause trust me if he was playin' in/near my town- i'd go and for the length of the concert and the afterwards residual high i wouldn't remember any of the jacked-up stuff he's done, i'd check the forums on the org for that.

langebleu said:

The evidence produced in court found that Prince was contractualy obliged and he failed to fulfil on a legally binding obligation.

Oh yeah? Do you have a link to the court transcripts? On what basis was he contractually obliged?

Militant said:

langebleu said:

The evidence produced in court found that Prince was contractualy obliged and he failed to fulfil on a legally binding obligation.

Oh yeah? Do you have a link to the court transcripts? On what basis was he contractually obliged?

"Pop superstar Prince canceled his sold-out appearance at Croke Park in Dublin just 13 days before the show was to take place on June 16, 2008, without giving any explanation, leaving promoters MCD facing the bill to refund 55,000 tickets.

MCD owner Denis Desmond took legal action against Prince, and the case went to Dublin’s Commercial Courts in February 2010 where it was settled after a four-day hearing, with the musician’s legal team agreeing to pay over $2 million in damages and almost $1 million in legal costs."

Link

For days now you have been trying to say that Princedid not make any deal, people were acting on his behalf without his permission. While this is not a court transcript, it is taken from one that is in the public record. Where are you getting the facts to state your position?

Militant said:

langebleu said:

The evidence produced in court found that Prince was contractualy obliged and he failed to fulfil on a legally binding obligation.

Oh yeah? Do you have a link to the court transcripts? On what basis was he contractually obliged?

Make it stop, Mother! Make it stop!!!

leonche64 said:

"Pop superstar Prince canceled his sold-out appearance at Croke Park in Dublin just 13 days before the show was to take place on June 16, 2008, without giving any explanation, leaving promoters MCD facing the bill to refund 55,000 tickets.

MCD owner Denis Desmond took legal action against Prince, and the case went to Dublin’s Commercial Courts in February 2010 where it was settled after a four-day hearing, with the musician’s legal team agreeing to pay over $2 million in damages and almost $1 million in legal costs."

Link

For days now you have been trying to say that Princedid not make any deal, people were acting on his behalf without his permission. While this is not a court transcript, it is taken from one that is in the public record. Where are you getting the facts to state your position?

That's a newspaper report. That information could have come from anywhere.

And I haven't been saying anything of the sort. As I've stated in damn near every post, I'm just speculating. But I do believe Prince has a plan and that there is MUCH, MUCH more to this story than meets the eye.

Militant said:

leonche64 said:

"Pop superstar Prince canceled his sold-out appearance at Croke Park in Dublin just 13 days before the show was to take place on June 16, 2008, without giving any explanation, leaving promoters MCD facing the bill to refund 55,000 tickets.

MCD owner Denis Desmond took legal action against Prince, and the case went to Dublin’s Commercial Courts in February 2010 where it was settled after a four-day hearing, with the musician’s legal team agreeing to pay over $2 million in damages and almost $1 million in legal costs."

Link

For days now you have been trying to say that Princedid not make any deal, people were acting on his behalf without his permission. While this is not a court transcript, it is taken from one that is in the public record. Where are you getting the facts to state your position?

That's a newspaper report. That information could have come from anywhere.

And I haven't been saying anything of the sort. As I've stated in damn near every post, I'm just speculating. But I do believe Prince has a plan and that there is MUCH, MUCH more to this story than meets the eye.

Yeah, and we know with the serious laws concerning libel in the U.K. that a newspaper will make up stories of this nature and print them without checking any facts. Do you read your own post? Go back and start from the first one.

Militant said:

leonche64 said:

"Pop superstar Prince canceled his sold-out appearance at Croke Park in Dublin just 13 days before the show was to take place on June 16, 2008, without giving any explanation, leaving promoters MCD facing the bill to refund 55,000 tickets.

MCD owner Denis Desmond took legal action against Prince, and the case went to Dublin’s Commercial Courts in February 2010 where it was settled after a four-day hearing, with the musician’s legal team agreeing to pay over $2 million in damages and almost $1 million in legal costs."

Link

For days now you have been trying to say that Princedid not make any deal, people were acting on his behalf without his permission. While this is not a court transcript, it is taken from one that is in the public record. Where are you getting the facts to state your position?

That's a newspaper report. That information could have come from anywhere.

And I haven't been saying anything of the sort. As I've stated in damn near every post, I'm just speculating. But I do believe Prince has a plan and that there is MUCH, MUCH more to this story than meets the eye.

.

the courts in ireland ruled in the promoters favour...that is a fact...so i would suggest that it aint looking very likely that prince has a legal leg to stand on here...or..if he has something up his sleeve.....he will need to hit back with it asap....

.

.

leonche64 said:

Yeah, and we know with the serious laws concerning libel in the U.K. that a newspaper will make up stories of this nature and print them without checking any facts. Do you read your own post? Go back and start from the first one.

Except that Dublin is not in the UK. Try again.

Militant said:

leonche64 said:

Yeah, and we know with the serious laws concerning libel in the U.K. that a newspaper will make up stories of this nature and print them without checking any facts. Do you read your own post? Go back and start from the first one.

Except that Dublin is not in the UK. Try again.

E.U.

I doubt that Prince acutally pas bill himself. He has a staff of people that do it for him. Or in this case not for him. He needs to fire them and get a group togheter that knows how to do their jobs.

I doubt that Prince acutally pays bills himself. He has a staff of people that do it for him. Or in this case not for him. He needs to fire them and get a group togheter that knows how to do their jobs.

kbarso said:

I doubt that Prince acutally pays bills himself. He has a staff of people that do it for him. Or in this case not for him. He needs to fire them and get a group togheter that knows how to do their jobs.

I would imagine that Prince's accountant has a limit to the amount of dollar value that can be "signed" without Prince's approval. That would just be good sense not to have large sums of money spent and then the account is dry. As for the ruling in Ireland, from what I learned in Business Law, and I will admit, this was a basic course, my Professor taught that international business law is complicated. In essence, the US does not have to honor the Irish ruling against Prince, and therefore liens and seizures cannot be conducted by a foriegn government in the US. The same can go the other way. Perhaps there is someone on the org who is involved in international business law to clarify this scenario. I am not trying to be a know it all, I am a junior in college majoring in accounting. I just thought I would share what I have been taught. As for the law firm that Prince owes 700 grand, that is a whole new can of worms.

[Edited 3/3/11 20:13pm]

SEXUALCHOCOLATE said:

So he owes money....He's not a thief.

Gaga rips off songs....THIEF!

depends on your definition of thief/ these people that prince owes have employes, overhead and their own bills to pay. some of his bullshit- i dont need to pay for shit attitute- may have bankrupted some small companies/ its all depends what side of the fence you are on.

leave the poor man alone.....cant we just d.m.s.r? and forget the hater's?

bigbrother said:

Lest we condemn Prince too rashly, don't forget that recently he gave a considerable amount of money to help disadvantaged kids in Harlem. This doesn't excuse his behaviour but to say he's a tight bastard is unfair IMO.

Exactly!!!! He will pay when he gets ready 2. LEAVE HIM ALONE PEOPLE! &

Militant said:

I would not be surprised at all if Prince has a strategy that will allow him to brush all of this off without paying a dime. Again, much crazier things have happened.

Exactly! The first thing my sister(a paralegal) said when I told her this crap had popped back up was "I bet that little MF has a plan. Prince ain't stupid. He is going to push this out as far as he can and find a loophole if he hasn't already." I agree, people look at things as black/white sometimes, but what they fail to realize is that the world is full of shades of gray! I wouldn't be surprised at all if Prince ends up not paying anything. He'll at least drag this out another few years anyway...

Militant said:

I'm not saying any strategy he may have will work, I'm just saying I think he may have one.

And I am sure that I read, at the time, that Prince's lawyers were not present at the Irish courthouse. I could be wrong. And even if they were - if there isn't any evidence that he specifically requested them to represent THIS particular case for him, he could still contest it.

There is so much Prince could say that could get both cases thrown out, it aint even funny. If he can prove that he didn't hire the firm to represent him, or he hired them under mental distress, or he didn't get the services he was promised, etc. he could not only get the Dublin lawsuit thrown out, but that would make the firm's case null and void! It isn't always about right/wrong, its about who has the better case and can prove their side of the story the best!

I have to say that because Prince never gave a reason for the cancellation, he already has a plan, which is why he didn't reveal the reasons for the cancellation. It could be some reason out of his control, in which he may not be held liable for funds lost and the insurance company would have to cover it. Prince is quite intelligent, he knows what he's doing!

Dreamer2 said:

dalsh327 said:

It's more likely he has to deal with a class action lawsuit if Prince has debts against different people he still owes.

A European concert promoter trying to seize Prince's assets is kind of ridiculous.

At last someone on the org who tells it like it is..........

Relax people this is big business .....this is very common in the music industry ....it's big news because Prince as we all know is a big star and most people don't know sh*t about what's going on in his world .....so the newspapers jump on every little story......

Relax .....move on nothing going on here but the rent!

No big deal, happens all the time. MJ was sued like 100 times a year, rarely did he have to pay up. You just keep appealing anyway, once you find something new to add to your case. The idea that someone from the EU could take a US celeb's house over 3Million bucks is ridiculous and hilarious that anyone would believe that. They barely want to garnish your wages when you owe something here, why would they take a big time celebs house over a foreign court decision? If Prince were worried about this, he'd have paid by now..

rudedog said:

I blame it on the fact that he does not have an accountant (which he should have) and most likely him 'donating' to his cult is causing him financial hardship. I've seen many of ppl lose their lives due to 'giving their money to God'. Its an addiction.

Its not an addiction, its a conviction...a calling. Churches have bills to pay too and need money to survive. Its only right that the members should support it, those with serious cash should be donating serious cash! I would hope Prince is donating to his church and missionary work too.

sherides4mother said:

psychodelicide said:

That's a good question. My understanding is that both the purple house and Prince's other house in Chanhassen were both torn down. The only other thing I can think of is Paisley Park, but I hope to God that Prince doesn't lose that.

I don't think he will, but it could happen. MJJ lost Neverland and other artists have lost money and property as well. As THE world's worst money person, I can assure anyone in this world that property can be lost to mismanagement and bad judgement.

Prince will focus on this and come through it ok, IMHO

MJJ lost Neverland because he borrowed against it and couldn't pay the bank back, or wouldn't. I don't believe MJ was ever broke, the man is/was the biggest celeb in the world, he could have made the money back with a short 10 show tour. MJ didn't want Neverland after the ridiculous hounds of Tom Sneddon tore it apart looking for nonexistant evidence. Prince won't lose Paisley Park, its not even in danger. They won't take a celebs house for owing a foreign promoter 3million dollars. Hell, Chris Tucker owes the US GOV'T like 11million in taxes, they aint took his hourse..

skywalker said:

sherides4mother said:

I don't think he will, but it could happen. MJJ lost Neverland and other artists have lost money and property as well. As THE world's worst money person, I can assure anyone in this world that property can be lost to mismanagement and bad judgement.

Prince will focus on this and come through it ok, IMHO

Correct me if I am wrong. I thought MJ didn't "lose" Neverland, but just let it go after vowing to never return.

You are right, MJ vowed to never return BEFORE the bank took the house. He hadn't lived there for almost 2 years before the bank took over it. What folks seem to forget is that MJ not only owned 50% of the billion dollar Beatles catalogue, but he owned the rights to over 6, 000 other songs from popular artists like Taylor Swift, Justin Timberlake, and others. The man had cash to spare..

And surprise, surprise, MJ still could have the say so over it and such if he wanted too. Things aren't always as they seem, the media likes to create smoke when there isn't even a fire!

langebleu said:

Militant said:

Another thing is that Prince didn't have a contract with Desmond in the first place. The only reason he was found liable was because a judge (in Ireland) made that call at his own discretion. Not every judge would do that.

If there's one thing I know about law,

... it's clearly not about basic contract law.

The evidence produced in court found that Prince was contractualy obliged and he failed to fulfil on a legally binding obligation.

Yeah, but that was in a Ireland court. Without a written contract here in the US, the same may not have been found. The courts here frown on verbal agreements and crap to the same. Prince is allowed to cancel a concert if he wants... And just because some Dublin promoters produce some 2 bit evidence, doesn't mean Prince is foolish enough to let these mfs push him into a corner and pay money...which is why he ain't paid it.

If the promoters jumped the gun without all the terms in a WRITTEN contract, then I hope Prince fights it until the end and don't pay them anything. Their jurisdiction is in the EU, not here. I doubt he is worried about that money in the EU banks, if he were, he would have gotten it out of there by now!