If you were a performer that was generally considered so atrocious that an interviewer actually asked if you’d be willing to stop singing for the right amount… you’d think a person could take that as a hint. James Blunt seems to have possibly gotten the point, but says people will really have to pay up if they want him to shut his whiney mouth. The horse faced singer, known for atrocious tunes and romancing the ladies, gave a recent interview to Uncut magazine, where he said he’s not so stupid (or so proud, apparently) to say no to a decent offer.

HERE’S the news a lot of people have been waiting for… James Blunt has promised to quit singing if we stump up enough cash.

Despite his success, Blunt has been dogged by criticisms of his cheesy tunes and his “posh” military background.

And now he has finally been worn down by the opposition to his brand of melodic pop.

He told Uncut magazine: “If someone is prepared to pay me enough, I’ll stop.”

“There’s a good deal of inverse snobbery about all this. My background ought to be irrelevant. It’s bizarre that I should attract all this aggression. Any judgment made on that level is a form of prejudice. But, I’m travelling around the world and no one else seems aware of my very stupid speaking voice, which is all it is.”

[From the Daily Record]

The article is built around the premise that people are annoyed by Blunt because of his military service and how often he talks about it. While I suppose that could play a part in it, I think they’re really annoyed by Blunt’s music. And his face. There’s just something about that whine that makes me one to commit acts of violence I will keep to myself. But I think pinning it on military service is a convenient way to say “it’s not about me or my ‘talent,’ it’s about people’s issues with the military.” Um, no, you just suck.

Luckily the good people over at The Sun are trying to raise the necessary funds as we speak. I hope they open it up to the public - I will be making a record donation.

Here’s James Blunt on December 9th. Images thanks to PR Photos.

After what seems like an incredibly long time, Heath Ledger’s estate is nearly settled, with the entire thing going to his two-year-old daughter Matilda. The Ledger family says Michelle Williams never had to make a claim on Heath’s will because they have “gifted” every penny to Matilda.

EVERY penny of Heath Ledger’s estimated $20 million will go to his little girl Matilda Rose, Ledger’s father says. In his will, which has been probated behind closed doors at the Supreme Court in Perth, Ledger left everything to his parents and three sisters. Many observers expected his former partner Michelle Williams to lodge a claim on the will, which was signed by the actor on April 12, 2003, two years before Matilda was born.

The will left half of the estate to Ledger’s sisters, Kate and Olivia Ledger and Ashleigh Bell. The remainder was to go to his parents, Kim Ledger and Sally Bell, after debts had been paid. But Ledger’s father, Kim, says there will be no challenge and the family has given everything to Matilda. “There is no claim,” Mr Ledger said. “Our family has gifted everything to Matilda.”

Some estimates have put the value of the Heath Ledger estate at up to $20 million. But Adelaide accountant Mark Dyson, who is an executor of the estate, said he could not reveal what Matilda would inherit. The will, filed at the Manhattan equivalent of Australia’s Family Court after Ledger died in New York on January 22 from a cocktail of prescription drugs, puts the bulk of his assets into a trust.

[From Perth Now]

Michelle Williams’ father, who is a well-known stock market trader, had had a beef with the Ledger family over some of the financial details in Ledger’s will that didn’t make sense.

Despite the millions of dollars in property in Ledger’s trusts, his will lists assets and cash of just $145,000, with no mention of mansions or millions.

Williams’ father has previously challenged the grieving Ledger family to publicly state the value of their son’s fortune.

Larry Williams, one of the world’s best-known stock market traders, said he was perplexed that documents filed in a New York court listed Ledger’s assets at just $145,000.

“It’s real simple: just come clean with everything,” he said.

[From Perth Now]

It does seem that Heath’s affairs (and finances) were a bit out of order, to say the least. He hadn’t updated his will since Matilda was born, which added a lot of complications. And clearly he had some sort of assets worth a good deal more than $145,000, as it’s estimated Matilda will probably inherit something around $16.5 million in U.S. dollars.

Hopefully this wraps up any lingering tensions between the Ledger and Williams families and they can all continue to be involved in Matilda’s life.

When the bad economy is affecting the ever-resilient porn industry, you know we’re in deep, deep trouble. In fact I wasn’t as worried as I probably should be – until I read that Playboy seems to be undergoing a financial crisis. If even the gold standard of porn can’t hold it together, what’s left for the rest of us?

Though Hugh Hefner is reported to be “breaking up” with two of his three girlfriends, it appears more that they’re getting laid off. According to the Daily News, the company is having financial problems, and Hef has been told to lay off some of his employees. I’m pretty sure Kendra and Bridget fall under that title. And I’m only sorta joking.

It’s been a bad week for Playboy.

Girlie magazine magnate Hugh Hefner has become the latest victim of the financial crisis. According to published reports, advisers have told the 83-year-old tycoon to lay off some of his staff at his L.A. and New York offices - or face bankruptcy.

Though the news might seem surprising, insiders at the company say the situation has been worsening for “a while,” reports Britain’s Telegraph. “Only the top brass has known for a while how bad things have been for Hef recently,” one insider said.

Meanwhile, spokesperson Elizabeth Austin would neither confirm nor deny the financial problems, saying, “It is our policy not to comment on corporate matters such as employee issues.”

[From the Daily News]

In early August it was reported that Hefner was trying to cut costs; that Playboy was ceasing its legendary parties, and even rumors that Hef was going to sell the mansion. Though he denied it at the time, it seems there’s some truth to it after all. They say some industries are resilient because we always need them. Jobs like doctors, police officers, etc. I just always assumed being a Playboy bunny was one of them. There goes my backup plan.

Here’s Kendra and Bridget (background) leaving STK restaurant in West Hollywood with a film crew yesterday. Images thanks to Fame. Header of Kendra Wilkinson, Holly Madison, Hugh Hefner and Bridget Marquardt at the ESPY Awards Kick-off Party at the Playboy Mansion on July 14th. Images thanks to PR Photos.

Amy Winehouse continues to find a seemingly impossible amount of new ways to be utterly revolting. You might think that after the all night benders, the scaly impetigo skin, or the rats nest of hair that’s probably home to a plethora of beetles, Amy wouldn’t go out of her way to find new, inventive means to be disgusting. But you’d be wrong. Because Amy Winehouse lives in a world far, far displaced from the normal rules and morays of society. It’s a place where it’s totally acceptable to borrow $50,000 worth of dresses from a top-notch designer, and then return them stained with vomit.

We’ve heard of some sick stunts in our time – but Amy Winehouse’s latest escapade beats the lot. She’s landed herself with a massive £25,000 bill after borrowing posh designer frocks – and returning them with her own unique calling card… splattered with vomit. Even worse, when the Back To Black singer finally returned the puke-stained outfits, her little deposits had green, furry mould growing on them. Revolting!

Unsurprisingly, 25-year-old Amy has now been blacklisted by furious fashion PRs and shouldn’t expect any loans or freebies for a while. Our insider reveals: “Harvey Nichols loaned Amy £25k’s worth of silk and satin dresses. Unfortunately, while wearing one of the frocks, she went on an all-night bender. She ended up in the loos, where she was violently sick. Let’s just say it wasn’t pretty.”

If Amy had, er, cleaned up her act (and the outfit) there would have been no problem. But it seems she forgot that dress wasn’t hers to mess up. We hear: “She eventually couriered them back on Monday, but didn’t wrap them separately. So sick had gone on all the clothes. Even worse, green, furry mould had developed on some gowns, making them unwearable.

“The store publicists weren’t best pleased. They send stuff out to celebs all the time, but it never gets into such a state. I doubt Amy will be sent any more designer gear for a while and the store has now asked for its £25k back.”

[From the Mirror]

That is utterly disgusting. There are some things you expect of Amy Winehouse, but there are other things that are so disgusting you don’t expect them of anyone. If nothing else, I’d assume Amy has an assistant or some sort of handler that takes care of her errands, and that person would have prevented vomit and mold-ridden dresses from being returned to the generous store. It’s just gotten to the point where it’s sort of a “what will she do next?” situation. And no matter what you think Amy’s capable of, it’s always something worse.

Here is Amy on Sept. 11. There’s also a photo of a paparazzi van decorated for her birthday outside her house on Sept. 14. Credit: WENN

While some celebs are most known for spending all their time and money promoting themselves (or slapping their own name on other people’s work) a good many should be equally known for their good deeds, which includes donating large sums of money to charitable causes. Parade magazine (that little insert magazine that comes in your Sunday paper and has ads for hearing aid batteries and wonder bee pollen pills) compiled a list of the 30 most generous celebrities.

Not surprisingly, Oprah came in number one. I’m pretty sure it’s a rule that she has to come in first place on any list. Even if the list were something like, “World’s tallest man,” or “Person who swam the most laps in a non-Olympic sized pool” somehow Oprah would still be best at it. Luckily this is a pretty awesome list to top, and she’s in good company.

Oprah Winfrey tops a list of the 30 most generous celebrities, compiled by The Giving Back Fund and published in the Sept. 14 issue of Parade. The 54-year-old talk show host and media mogul gave out $50.2 million last year to causes including her foundation and Oprah’s Angel Network. Power couple Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie ranked sixth, with donations of $8.4 million in 2007. Among their interests: Pitt’s charity Make It Right, which is helping to rebuild New Orleans.

Rounding out the top five: musician Herb Alpert with $13 million; Barbra Streisand with $11 million; Paul Newman with $10 million; and Mel Gibson with $9.9 million. “Some stars set a bad example from time to time, so it’s nice to celebrate those who are doing good work,” Parade editor Janice Kaplan tells Us Weekly in its latest issue. “We can’t all give $50 million like Oprah, but she makes us understand that giving back matters,” Kaplan adds.

Athletes Lance Armstrong, Michael Jordan and hockey player Eric Lindros tied for seventh place, with donations of $5 million each last year.

[From Us Weekly]

At first I was kind of confused about how Herb Alpert had $13 million to give away. Didn’t he have a few singles back in the day? Is there really that much money left in vinyl sales? Then Wikipedia generously reminded me that Herb Alpert is the “A” in A&M Records. Which makes more since than “Tijuana Taxi” netting that kind of cash.

Brangelina is no big surprise – they’ve made it clear that visible charity is a big part of their lifestyle. A lot of people get terse about why they have to be so obvious about it and make such a big deal about their good deeds. Whatever their reasoning, when they do that they also bring publicity to a cause, so there’s advantages for everyone.

Here’s Oprah at the 20th Annual Whitesboro Reunion Festival at the Martin Luther King Community Center in Whitesboro, New Jersey on August 30th. Credit: WENN. Brad Pitt is shown at the Burn After Reading premiere at the Venice Film Festival on 8/27/08. Credit: Solarpix / PR Photos

Even though she’s more famous for showing her boobs than any of the so-called “work” she’s ever done, actress Lindsay Lohan says she won’t be baring her breasts for Playboy. The gentlemen’s mag offered her $700,000 to take it all off for their 55th Anniversary issue, but apparently Lohan has suddenly found dignity and can’t bring herself to shed some skin for the masses.

IT’S once nude, twice shy for Lindsay Lohan. The Sapphic-leaning star has turned down a $700,000 offer to do an eight-page topless spread in Playboy’s 55th-anniversary issue this January. “If there’s nudity, then the answer’s no . . . She’s not going down the [New York] magazine road again,” Lohan’s rep told Playboy’s creative consultant, Hal Lifson, referring to Lindsay’s naked Marilyn Monroe tribute last winter. Lifson said he hoped to have Lohan do a tribute to ’60s sex kitten Ann-Margret and her film “Kitten With a Whip,” which is one of Lohan’s faves.

[From the New York Post]

Lohan really isn’t in any position to be turning down any work according to most insiders. For the last few years she’s been consistently reported to be pretty cash strapped. $700,000 is a lot of purses. Not only has she posed naked in the very recent past for New York Magazine, but she dresses in a manner to ensure that she’s constantly giving nipple slips to any guy who will so much as pass her the butter. Normally I wouldn’t be encouraging someone who doesn’t want to go topless to bare the goods, but in her case what’s the harm? It’s nothing we haven’t seen (in excess) before.

Here’s Lindsay on the set of “Ugly Betty” with America Ferrera in New York yesterday. Photographer: Hugh Dillon. Images thanks to WENN.

Well it didn’t take long for rumors of Madonna being a diva-esq bitch to surface on her latest tour. Madge has been a legendarily demanding over-perfectionist since her early days. In fact a lot of people have argued that’s why she’s been successful for so long, and maybe that’s true. Still you’d think that with her crazy amount of money it wouldn’t be impossible for her to show some kindness to her employees – she’s got over 250 of them on her current Sticky & Sweet tour.

Members of Madonna’s Sticky & Sweet tour crew are reportedly fuming after they were forced to stay in a cheap hotel while she booked in to a luxury castle.

Several of the 250-strong staff are said to be unhappy at their travel and accommodation arrangements for the mammoth jaunt, which began last month. It is claimed they were furious at being booked on no-frills airlines while the Material Girl flew by private jet.

Britain’s Daily Mirror newspaper also reports that there is growing resentment after the singer recently stayed at a $20,000 a night castle on the Cote d’Azur, while some crew were put up in a $92.50 a night hotel.

A source tells the newspaper, “Everyone is absolutely furious with her… they feel they are being treated like second-class citizens, despite all their hard work over the last few months.”

[From Starpulse]

This is one of those stories that – if it’s true – I could argue both sides. On the one hand Madonna is their employer, and she’s only responsible for making sure they have safe, reasonable accommodations. There’s no union stipulation that they must be in fancy or even nice digs, as far as I know. She’s paying them a legal wage and all that.

But I’m guessing most of the employees are actually annoyed because they’re working their butts off and they probably don’t get much credit. I would think if anyone’s show would be demanding in all aspects, it’d be Madonna’s. Everyone needs positive reinforcement. Perhaps if she were more liberal in showing her appreciation in other ways, her crew wouldn’t begrudge her the $20,000. Okay any reasonable person would probably be annoyed by that – but maybe less so. And these are the guys who set up her trap doors and special effects. I’d want them on my good side.

Here’s Madonna leaving her gym in London after a workout today. Images thanks to WENN.

For my sweet sixteen my dad took me and one friend to a restaurant, bought us dinner, and gave me a pair of athletic shoes from Costco. The exact same pair he’d given me the year before. Both remained unworn. For Miley Cyrus’ birthday, her dad Billy Ray Cyrus is throwing her a giant party at Disneyland. And if that’s not enough, the girl is even selling tickets to her big bash.

The bash has been described as “awesome,” and “totally awesome” by the teenager with the sixty year old smoker’s voice.

Miley Cyrus wants fans to help her celebrate her Sweet 16 — for a little green.

According to Entertainment Tonight, the teen queen — who earned $18.2 million last year — is selling a limited number of $250 tickets to her bash, set to take place at Disneyland. (She turns the big 1-6 on November 23.)

Tickets for “Miley’s Sweet 16 — Share the Celebration” go on sale August 30 at 9 a.m. PDT. Members of Youth Service America will also be honored for their charitable work.

“It’s gonna be an awesome party with more than 7 things I like,” she tells ET. “It’s gonna be totally awesome. I hope it’s a great time.”

She wouldn’t dish more, but said, “I love roller coasters. So this is my ultimate birthday.”

What’s on her birthday wish list? “A car,” she has said. “I will let you know when I’m on the road so you get off the road!”

[From Us Weekly]

I was a little confused by that whole thing with the Members of Youth Service America being honored for their charitable work. What in the world does that have to do with Miley Cyrus’ birthday? There’s no mention of proceeds going to help them or anything. It just seems like this random bit of do-goodery publicity thrown in there. Maybe it’s one of the seven things she likes.

Something tells me Miley’s wish of getting a car will probably come true. Though I do hope she gets a pair of athletic shoes too. That’s every girl’s sweet sixteen fantasy. No I’m not still bitter, why?

Here’s Miley celebrating her VMA nomination with her family on Saturday. Images thanks to Fame.

Rihanna’s ex business manager says the star has just $20,000 in the bank after Rihanna’s management company used up the money from her endorsement deals to fund her albums and videos. All of these business expenses should be the responsibility of Rihanna’s record label, Def Jam, but they didn’t want to invest in Rihanna when her CDs failed to sell as expected. She has a lot of hit singles, but that doesn’t translate to album sales. The ex business manager says that Rihanna’s other management team made the decision to fund her career with her own money in an attempt to help her put out more records in a short period of time and build her popularity quickly. When Rihanna’s business manager tried to show the 20 year-old pop singer that she was going broke through this practice, she claims that Rihanna was livid and fired her.

Rihanna’s now ex-business manager Patricia Willliams has been recently fired as she says “for no good reason, all in ignorance” and is “livid” with Rihanna & her management company Rebel One’s decision to fire her. Rihanna recently met with her ex-biz manager to check on her funds and was shocked to see that almost all her money was missing. Rih-Rih instantly accused Willliams of “stealing her money.”

It’s not my fault that she only has $20,000 to her name.”

“I showed her all the paperwork and tried to explain to her the circumstances but she wouldn’t listen. She called me all sorts of horrible names and stormed off. I now feel compelled to share with the world the background story as I will not allow my name to be slandered”

The Barbados born singer has had four back-to-back albums, including a re-release since her debut of “Pon De Replay” in 2005.According to Willliams, Marc Jordan, manager and owner of Rebel One Management has been taking care of Rihanna’s financial situation with her.

“Def Jam doesn’t fund Rihanna properly, so Marc uses the money Rihanna makes from third-party endorsements and from tours to fund her album and music videos.” Since 2005, Rihanna has been sponsored by the likes of JC Penny, Samsung, Covergirl, Secret, Venus Breeze etc,. and has gone on two major tours, most recently label-mate Kanye West’s “Glow in the Dark” Tour and with Pussy Cat Dolls across Europe.”I don’t want to disrespect Marc’s name. He is a fantastic manager and genuinely believes in Rihanna. But he uses her money to fund her future projects because he believes he can break her in the world-market. Her album sales are not nearly as close to her single sales and he knows that if she is only known as a ’singles artist’ she will only be as good as her last hit. Unfortunately, he didn’t inform his client and I’m receiving the brunt of it…”

”The song “Umbrella” was found & Jordan fought again for Rihanna to have it. They shot the video, which CoverGirl funded half of, and the song became a success. When the record label had there meeting with Music Stores across the U.S to order her album for shipment, the number’s weren’t coming in the way that they expected. When the album’s first week numbers came in at less than 150,000, the label was shocked. Def Jam’s President LA Reid was livid! Umbrella was #1 for 11 weeks! Any other artist would have sold way more first week. T-Pain even did better in sales than her that week. Def Jam told Jordan they were no longer funding the album, so Jordan needed money again to pay for music videos ‘Shut Up & Drive’ and ‘Dont Stop The Music’. Almost 250,000 was spent to have those videos created. Plus, an additional 120,000 to shoot ‘Hate That I Love You’. Jordan was noticing that ‘Dont Stop The Music’ was picking up, so her persuaded the label to support it at radio in the U.S and the remaining singles, and they did.””Then came for the repackaging of her album ‘Good Girl Gone Bad’, which is called ‘Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded’, that entire project was funded through Rihanna’s money.

‘Take A Bow’ was bought through her money, the video was created with her money and so is her most recent video and single ‘Disturbia’. The label didn’t even want to pay a dime for anything! Close to 750,000 was spent on those two songs alone. And now she expects to see money in her account?” Williams states that Jordan, her publicist from well-respected public relations firm 42-West, Alicia Silverman has built alot of hype around Rihanna’s name but the singer has only made “a little bit above a million” and “all of it was spent on making her as big as she is now.”

[From Blackrazzi via D-Listed]

That’s incredible if it’s true. A few years ago I saw a special on MTV about the ways that record companies screw artists out of money. They used the example of A Tribe Called Quest’s critically acclaimed 1991 album, The Low End Theory, which sold a million copies but somehow only netted the band members less than $40,000 each. (I can’t find the exact number, and it was probably even less than this.) You would think that Rihanna would be raking in the cash with all those endorsement deals, but if it’s all the money is going to further her career she’s not going to be rich for long. She’s young, though, and has a lot of opportunities now. If this is what’s happening her next step should be to hire someone to help sort it out for her. She can make millions back, but not with the manager that’s using up all her cash and hiding it from her.

Rihanna is shown out on 6/29/08. Credit: Fame

Hugh Hefner may finally be growing up. Whoever thought a man could jump from stunted 25-year-old bachelor to senior citizen without any of the stages that generally come in between? According to Pop Tarts, Hef is finally planning on retiring the bunny ears. The parties, the extra girlfriends – maybe even the grotto. It’s all on its way out. Say it ain’t so.

It looks like Holly Madison is finally getting what she wants — Hugh Hefner all to herself and the winding down of his wild parties populated by girls wearing next to nothing.

Fellow girlfriends Kendra Wilkinson and Bridget Marquardt were nowhere to be seen at last Thursday’s EA Madden NFL ‘09 Game Launch party at West Hollywood’s STK. And the Playboy founder clearly only had eyes for Madison as they canoodled in the back VIP booth, with Holly very much in her element and laughing a lot more than usual (for once she didn’t have to share her man).

… Pop Tarts has been told by numerous inside sources that this is the last time bunnies and big-wigs will hop around the Shakespeare-themed party. After decades and decades of wild nights, we hear Hef is calling it a day and that Playboy Enterprises has decided that this party and the upcoming annual Halloween party will be the last that the magazine mogul personally throws as a means to cut costs.

A rep from the men’s mag kept mum on the murmurs, saying: “Who knows what will happen in a year from now?”

[From Fox News’ Pop Tarts]

The article says that the mansion is still going to be available for private party rentals. Sounds like an excellent place to host a wedding shower to me. It sounds like the decision is mostly a business one, but I’m sure Holly Madison still has visions of little babies crawling around in bunny costumes. Of course they’ll be the kind with footies and a trap door in the back for a quick diaper change. No word on if Hef is really ready to act his age… or even half his age. But it seems like a step, nonetheless.

Here’s Hef and some bunnies at the “Madden NFL 09″ VIP Premiere and Celebration of 20th Anniversary of the Madden NFL Franchise at STK/Coco De Ville in West Hollywood on August 7th. Images thanks to PR Photos. Images thanks to WENN.