GOOP Is Nothing But A Common Debtor

April 22nd, 2014 // 28 Comments
A Non-Rich Person? EWW!
Gwyneth Paltrow Bikini Spielberg
Chris Martin Banged An SNL Assistant Read More »

And now for the feel good story of the day. Gwyneth Paltrow‘s infamous lifestyle website apparently isn’t the golden organic goose that lays renewable gilded Faberge eggs into a repurposed compost chateau we were led to believe. Peasants lies, we were told. Filthy, filthy peasant lies. Served with canned cheese. Radar reports:

It’s not that GOOP wasn’t making money. In fact, in 2012, they raked in more than $1.5 million (£908,378), thanks in part to $463,486 (£276,040) in product sales, as well as an impressive (£222,243) from Groupon promotions and $373,159 (£535,002) in commissions. All told, the company made $1,893,065 (£1,127,456).
But that same year, GOOP spent $98,150 (£58,456) on, $79,961 (£47,623) on the notorious GOOP newsletter, $189,590 (£112,918) on product costs, and a whopping $1,564,995 (£932,096) in administrative expenses,” adding up to the grand profit total of a loss of $39,823 (£23,718).

As for who was getting the biggest slice of this beggar’s pie? Madame Paltrow herself, and her naturally British CEO Sebastian Bishop:

Chief among those “administrative expenses” were Paltrow and CEO Sebastian Bishop’s “renumeration,” or salaries, for which the company allotted $587,653.25 (£350,000), a sizable increase from the previous year’s figure of $172,585 (£102,788), despite the company’s losses.
The documents also show that in 2012, both Paltrow and Bishop were the recipient of interest-free “loans to directors,” with Paltrow’s listed at a balance of $49,025 (£29,200), of which none was paid back, and Bishop’s at $83,617 (£49,800).

Paltrow and Bishop’s report had an excuse, insisting, “As the company started product sales in June 2012, the directors are of the opinion that predicted profits will provide sufficient resources to enable the company to continue trading for the foreseeable future.”
The continued existence of GOOP, it seems, would depend upon it, since the report noted that in addition to the losses, the company owed creditors more than $1.2 million (£722,111), all of which would come due by the end of 2013.

When asked why she hadn’t repaid the loan from GOOP, Gwyneth Paltrow said the website smelled of chimney sweeps which made the conditions of her repayment null and void. Later, her attorney would say that Ms. Paltrow recently miscarried, and those words can’t be held against in her court of law. He then vanished in a poof of smoke per his training at Hogwarts at Gwyneth’s insistence. “A muggle representing my affairs? I’ll shag a bloody lemon merchant first,” were her exact words.

Photo: Getty, Pacific Coast News, Splash News


  1. She’s slowly being exposed for the phony she is. Poor Goopy. Time to find a sugar daddy to bail you out.

  2. Jake

    And a whopping $1,564,995 in administrative expenses,” adding up to the grand profit total of a loss of $39,823 (£23,718).

    Um, that’s how it’s done. Assume $1M of that $1.5M in administrative expenses was Goop paying Gwyneth a salary. You pay it enough in salaries as expenses, and you can show a loss for the enterprise, and pay not tax on the Goop revenues. (Gwyneth still pays taxes on the income, but avoids double taxation).

  3. Jethro

    It was the “interest-free loans to directors” that started the ball rolling that brought down the house of televangelist Jim & Tammy Bakker.

  4. Slash

    Paltrow is a dipshit, but I’m finding it difficult to get all verklempt over this. Many corporations pay their “executives” too much to do too little.

  5. Burt

    She’s 4-6 months away from doing handjobs in the back parking lot of a Denny’s for money

    • MarketingMike

      By then she’ll be standing in the same alley as Beiber, who will be
      lip-syncing “Baby Baby” to his beat box, for food (aka: lines of heroin).

  6. Pretty typical for a closely held start-up. Even the 1.2M in debt is probably structured as a convertible note. I see nothing here that is extraordinary or notable; and for Ms. Paltrow, I’m sure that is the most insulting part.

  7. JC

    I’m just baffled as to why she decided to borrow (steal) a piddly $50K as a loan. Is she so hard up she can’t find a liquid $50K any other way? And even then, why not just chunk it into her salary or as a bonus? I don’t know the tax implications, but presumably that would be less eyebrow raising to us plebes.

    Hey Photoboy, you know that thing that’s been going around the interwebs of celebs looking different with bangs? Could you Photoshop some eyebrows on Gwyneth? I’m curious what she’d look like. Maybe something pointy, like Cruella De Ville or something large and singular, like Leonid Brezhnev.

  9. Gwyneth Paltrow Butt Tight Pants Apple Store
    Hugh G. Rection
    Commented on this photo:

    Is she still an A List movie star? Would the Iron Man movies have made one penny less if she wasn’t in them?

    • You probably could have cast me as Pepper What’s-her-name and the franchise wouldn’t have suffered one iota.

    • MarketingMike

      Honest to God, when I saw the first Ironman movie and she
      appeared I thought to myself “oh shit, she’s still acting?”
      Pretty much any actress in Hollywood could have done it.
      Kat Dennings braless in a low-cut would have been perfect….

  10. Smapdi

    Perhaps the Goopster can spend some of her “renumeration” on a dictionary.

  11. PassingTrue

    Her acting in the Ironman franchise actually makes her seem likable, which alone should have netted her an Oscar. Of course, she’ll probably get some mileage on the next two Avenger cameos, but if RDJ takes a pass on I/4, Goop is going to need some expanded profits.

  12. Gwyneth Paltrow Butt Tight Pants Apple Store
    Frank Burns
    Commented on this photo:

    “Irregardless of my supposably high renumeration, I can say in good conscious that people misunderstimate by contribution to GOOP!”

    • Veronika Larsson

      It’s not “irregardless”, it’s “regardless”.

      It’s not “conscious”, it’s “conscience”.

      I am disappointment in you’re grammer.

  13. MarketingMike

    I can’t imagine any director in Hollywood hiring her now.
    Would you? Plus, she’s way over 40 and not aging well.
    “Would you like a Salad with your Chicken Fried Steak Sir?”

  14. Gwyneth Paltrow Butt Tight Pants Apple Store
    Commented on this photo:

    I wonder who got to keep the black friends in the divorce?

  15. Gwyneth Paltrow Butt Tight Pants Apple Store
    Commented on this photo:

    oh look at her hair, it’s really bad, like someone who pukes her face off daily, many times, bulimic

  16. Gwyneth Paltrow Butt Tight Pants Apple Store
    Commented on this photo:

    she has typical bulimics knuckles, maybe not so evident in this photo, they tend to be permanently swollen and protruding, even if there are no teethmarks, and no – it’s not because that is how she looks or she is so skinny, no it is swollen knuckes from four fingers in throat and knuckles getting grinded by the teeth all the time

  17. Freebie

    She’s looking old and tired.

  18. She looks more like Mann Coulter every day.

Leave A Comment