The buyer in question must be so proud to have secured this painting for $450m. To be able to stare lovingly each evening at this inanimate object and show it off to one's friends must be so so satisfying.
Much more rewarding than funding chemotherapy treatment for a few thousand people and seeing the hope and joy that this might ultimately bring to those cancer sufferers and their families.
The buyer in question must be so proud to have secured this painting for $450m. To be able to stare lovingly each evening at this inanimate object and show it off to one's friends must be so so satisfying.
Much more rewarding than funding chemotherapy treatment for a few thousand people and seeing the hope and joy that this might ultimately bring to those cancer sufferers and their families.
Come on, as if the money in football couldnt be better spent curing cancer... its really not the point though is it. Next time you decorate your gaff, I hope you donate it to a hospice instead on blowing it all on wall paper
The buyer in question must be so proud to have secured this painting for $450m. To be able to stare lovingly each evening at this inanimate object and show it off to one's friends must be so so satisfying.
Much more rewarding than funding chemotherapy treatment for a few thousand people and seeing the hope and joy that this might ultimately bring to those cancer sufferers and their families.
Come on, as if the money in football couldnt be better spent curing cancer... its really not the point though is it. Next time you decorate your gaff, I hope you donate it to a hospice instead on blowing it all on wall paper
Where did I say that the money in football isn't obscene? Because it is. And $450m for one object is beyond obscene in if my opinion. But if people get satisfaction, having paid that sort of money, staring at an object then good luck to them
We can all do more to help others. But some can do a lot more than others. And choose not to.
The buyer in question must be so proud to have secured this painting for $450m. To be able to stare lovingly each evening at this inanimate object and show it off to one's friends must be so so satisfying.
Much more rewarding than funding chemotherapy treatment for a few thousand people and seeing the hope and joy that this might ultimately bring to those cancer sufferers and their families.
Come on, as if the money in football couldnt be better spent curing cancer... its really not the point though is it. Next time you decorate your gaff, I hope you donate it to a hospice instead on blowing it all on wall paper
Where did I say that the money in football isn't obscene? Because it is. And $450m for one object is beyond obscene in if my opinion. But if people get satisfaction, having paid that sort of money, staring at an object then good luck to them
We can all do more to help others. But some can do a lot more than others. And choose not to.
Maybe they do do a lot for others?
Maybe they gave more than that to charity every year?
And where does "obscene" start? £10m £1m £500k, £50k £10k?
The buyer in question must be so proud to have secured this painting for $450m. To be able to stare lovingly each evening at this inanimate object and show it off to one's friends must be so so satisfying.
Much more rewarding than funding chemotherapy treatment for a few thousand people and seeing the hope and joy that this might ultimately bring to those cancer sufferers and their families.
Come on, as if the money in football couldnt be better spent curing cancer... its really not the point though is it. Next time you decorate your gaff, I hope you donate it to a hospice instead on blowing it all on wall paper
Where did I say that the money in football isn't obscene? Because it is. And $450m for one object is beyond obscene in if my opinion. But if people get satisfaction, having paid that sort of money, staring at an object then good luck to them
We can all do more to help others. But some can do a lot more than others. And choose not to.
Maybe they do do a lot for others?
Maybe they gave more than that to charity every year?
And where does "obscene" start? £10m £1m £500k, £50k £10k?
The buyer in question must be so proud to have secured this painting for $450m. To be able to stare lovingly each evening at this inanimate object and show it off to one's friends must be so so satisfying.
Much more rewarding than funding chemotherapy treatment for a few thousand people and seeing the hope and joy that this might ultimately bring to those cancer sufferers and their families.
Come on, as if the money in football couldnt be better spent curing cancer... its really not the point though is it. Next time you decorate your gaff, I hope you donate it to a hospice instead on blowing it all on wall paper
Where did I say that the money in football isn't obscene? Because it is. And $450m for one object is beyond obscene in if my opinion. But if people get satisfaction, having paid that sort of money, staring at an object then good luck to them
We can all do more to help others. But some can do a lot more than others. And choose not to.
Yes it is obscene that somebody or some organisation could spend that amount of money on one object - of course it is.
But all it is in reality is a barter - the new owner has the painting, the seller has $450 mill less the fees - and the auction house have the fees. So the $450 mill is still in circulation and who knows what good the seller and the auctioneer might do with that money. The wealth existed before, as did the painting - and both still exist in totality.
That’s obscene and offensive, tells you exactly what’s wrong with our society!
This is where i'm at Sillav, if someone has close to half a billion to spend on a picture then the spread of wealth is obscene.
The thing is, no-one "spends" half a billion on a painting.
It's an investment. A gamble that the amount they're shelling out to own it is less than they can get by owning it and by selling it.
And they certainly won t be writing a cheque for the full amount right now.
First, they'll arrange to pay for it over a number of years. Second, part of the funding will come at ridiculously attractive rates from the auction house that sells it (they're in a desperately hard-fought market too: they all compete to be the auction house that sells the most expensive paintings...)
They'll have a huge cost of ownership too, in terms of maintenance, shipping and insurance.
But, they'll make money while they own it, by "loaning" it - for substantial fees - to galleries around the world. They, in turn, will recoup their costs by charging punters to look at it.
Put it in a gallery in London and a million people might pay £20 each to see it over three months. Find a sponsor to attach their name to it for another million. £21m recouped in London. Do it again in Paris, Rome, Madrid, Frankfurt, Stockholm, Dublin, Amsterdam, Prague, Porto and it's covered half its cost, in Europe. Do the same in North America, the Middle East, the Far East... get Moscow to compete with Beijing and Shanghai to show it... it quickly starts to make money.
And each loan will come with conditions attached, including that the gallery pays for maintenance, shipping and insurance.
Who makes money out of the maintenance of paintings? Galleries And auction houses usually.
Who makes money out of shipping? Multi-national corporations pushing commodities around the world.
Who makes money out of insurance? Insurance companies and brokers.
So, put together a consortium made up of a gallery, a multi national, an insurance company and an auction house and it very quickly stops being a "cost" and turns into a money-spinning enterprise.
Four hundred million quid is a lot of money for a picture to hang on the wall and look at. But, to the right consortium, it's a drop in the ocean compared to how much income it can generate for itself.
They won't lose money on this, whoever it is that's bought it.
That’s obscene and offensive, tells you exactly what’s wrong with our society!
This is where i'm at Sillav, if someone has close to half a billion to spend on a picture then the spread of wealth is obscene.
The thing is, no-one "spends" half a billion on a painting.
It's an investment. A gamble that the amount they're shelling out to own it is less than they can get by owning it and by selling it.
And they certainly won t be writing a cheque for the full amount right now.
First, they'll arrange to pay for it over a number of years. Second, part of the funding will come at ridiculously attractive rates from the auction house that sells it (they're in a desperately hard-fought market too: they all compete to be the auction house that sells the most expensive paintings...)
They'll have a huge cost of ownership too, in terms of maintenance, shipping and insurance.
But, they'll make money while they own it, by "loaning" it - for substantial fees - to galleries around the world. They, in turn, will recoup their costs by charging punters to look at it.
Put it in a gallery in London and a million people might pay £20 each to see it over three months. Find a sponsor to attach their name to it for another million. £21m recouped in London. Do it again in Paris, Rome, Madrid, Frankfurt, Stockholm, Dublin, Amsterdam, Prague, Porto and it's covered half its cost, in Europe. Do the same in North America, the Middle East, the Far East... get Moscow to compete with Beijing and Shanghai to show it... it quickly starts to make money.
And each loan will come with conditions attached, including that the gallery pays for maintenance, shipping and insurance.
Who makes money out of the maintenance of paintings? Galleries And auction houses usually.
Who makes money out of shipping? Multi-national corporations pushing commodities around the world.
Who makes money out of insurance? Insurance companies and brokers.
So, put together a consortium made up of a gallery, a multi national, an insurance company and an auction house and it very quickly stops being a "cost" and turns into a money-spinning enterprise.
Four hundred million quid is a lot of money for a picture to hang on the wall and look at. But, to the right consortium, it's a drop in the ocean compared to how much income it can generate for itself.
They won't lose money on this, whoever it is that's bought it.
Never looked at it that way ... quite revealing, cheers.
On the subject of silly money - someone has just paid £97,875 at Silverstone Auctions for a 1980 Mk2 Ford Escort RS2000. It had only done 927 miles since new though!
Another "fast Ford" a Sierra Cosworth RS500 went for £112,500. And a genuine Only Fools And Horses Reliant Regal cost someone a tidy £41,625.
That’s obscene and offensive, tells you exactly what’s wrong with our society!
This is where i'm at Sillav, if someone has close to half a billion to spend on a picture then the spread of wealth is obscene.
The thing is, no-one "spends" half a billion on a painting.
It's an investment. A gamble that the amount they're shelling out to own it is less than they can get by owning it and by selling it.
And they certainly won t be writing a cheque for the full amount right now.
First, they'll arrange to pay for it over a number of years. Second, part of the funding will come at ridiculously attractive rates from the auction house that sells it (they're in a desperately hard-fought market too: they all compete to be the auction house that sells the most expensive paintings...)
They'll have a huge cost of ownership too, in terms of maintenance, shipping and insurance.
But, they'll make money while they own it, by "loaning" it - for substantial fees - to galleries around the world. They, in turn, will recoup their costs by charging punters to look at it.
Put it in a gallery in London and a million people might pay £20 each to see it over three months. Find a sponsor to attach their name to it for another million. £21m recouped in London. Do it again in Paris, Rome, Madrid, Frankfurt, Stockholm, Dublin, Amsterdam, Prague, Porto and it's covered half its cost, in Europe. Do the same in North America, the Middle East, the Far East... get Moscow to compete with Beijing and Shanghai to show it... it quickly starts to make money.
And each loan will come with conditions attached, including that the gallery pays for maintenance, shipping and insurance.
Who makes money out of the maintenance of paintings? Galleries And auction houses usually.
Who makes money out of shipping? Multi-national corporations pushing commodities around the world.
Who makes money out of insurance? Insurance companies and brokers.
So, put together a consortium made up of a gallery, a multi national, an insurance company and an auction house and it very quickly stops being a "cost" and turns into a money-spinning enterprise.
Four hundred million quid is a lot of money for a picture to hang on the wall and look at. But, to the right consortium, it's a drop in the ocean compared to how much income it can generate for itself.
They won't lose money on this, whoever it is that's bought it.
Not sure all those figures add up as the owners won't get to keep every £20 spent by a punter in a gallery but there is certainly a way to re-coup some of the money.
Key thing is that they still own the painting and its image rights so can sell it again. It doesn't depreciate like a car. Whether they can ever get the same price depends on the market. Some people believe that increases in art prices are due to uncertaintly in the stock market or political upheaval as people look to other investments.
Doesn’t make you so happy that our kids have got such great general knowledge. Least he didn’t mention Ninja Turtles
I know, I explained that apart from that one where the boat sank and the Wall Street thing I didn't rate him as an actor. I did however ask them to go on his Facebook page and have a look for some of his other dawbs...
On the subject of silly money - someone has just paid £97,875 at Silverstone Auctions for a 1980 Mk2 Ford Escort RS2000. It had only done 927 miles since new though!
Another "fast Ford" a Sierra Cosworth RS500 went for £112,500. And a genuine Only Fools And Horses Reliant Regal cost someone a tidy £41,625.
I was at the NEC classic car show (where the auction took place) at the weekend and there were some ridiculous prices paid for some cars.
In addition to the 2 you mentioned, nearly £80k for a MK1 Escort RS1600 and £50k for a MK3 Capri Brooklands.
Prices for classic cars have been rocketing for a while now. Even the cost of every day/mundane models have shot up as a result.
That’s obscene and offensive, tells you exactly what’s wrong with our society!
This is where i'm at Sillav, if someone has close to half a billion to spend on a picture then the spread of wealth is obscene.
The thing is, no-one "spends" half a billion on a painting.
It's an investment. A gamble that the amount they're shelling out to own it is less than they can get by owning it and by selling it.
And they certainly won t be writing a cheque for the full amount right now.
First, they'll arrange to pay for it over a number of years. Second, part of the funding will come at ridiculously attractive rates from the auction house that sells it (they're in a desperately hard-fought market too: they all compete to be the auction house that sells the most expensive paintings...)
They'll have a huge cost of ownership too, in terms of maintenance, shipping and insurance.
But, they'll make money while they own it, by "loaning" it - for substantial fees - to galleries around the world. They, in turn, will recoup their costs by charging punters to look at it.
Put it in a gallery in London and a million people might pay £20 each to see it over three months. Find a sponsor to attach their name to it for another million. £21m recouped in London. Do it again in Paris, Rome, Madrid, Frankfurt, Stockholm, Dublin, Amsterdam, Prague, Porto and it's covered half its cost, in Europe. Do the same in North America, the Middle East, the Far East... get Moscow to compete with Beijing and Shanghai to show it... it quickly starts to make money.
And each loan will come with conditions attached, including that the gallery pays for maintenance, shipping and insurance.
Who makes money out of the maintenance of paintings? Galleries And auction houses usually.
Who makes money out of shipping? Multi-national corporations pushing commodities around the world.
Who makes money out of insurance? Insurance companies and brokers.
So, put together a consortium made up of a gallery, a multi national, an insurance company and an auction house and it very quickly stops being a "cost" and turns into a money-spinning enterprise.
Four hundred million quid is a lot of money for a picture to hang on the wall and look at. But, to the right consortium, it's a drop in the ocean compared to how much income it can generate for itself.
They won't lose money on this, whoever it is that's bought it.
Not sure all those figures add up as the owners won't get to keep every £20 spent by a punter in a gallery but there is certainly a way to re-coup some of the money.
Key thing is that they still own the painting and its image rights so can sell it again. It doesn't depreciate like a car. Whether they can ever get the same price depends on the market. Some people believe that increases in art prices are due to uncertaintly in the stock market or political upheaval as people look to other investments.
Yes, that's true. I just used some indicative numbers. But there's nothing to stop the owners "leasing" the painting to the gallery on the basis that they get paid £20 per visitor. The gallery then takes the risk of trying to squeeze >£20 out of each visitor or running a loss.
Point is there are lots of ways the painting can be made to make money. And I love the fact we are discussing it on a football forum, where players cost loads to buy, loads (in wages) to maintain, and their value depreciates massively.
I am hoping Roland's reading this to convince him that (as we all know) he's in the wrong game.
Comments
Much more rewarding than funding chemotherapy treatment for a few thousand people and seeing the hope and joy that this might ultimately bring to those cancer sufferers and their families.
We can all do more to help others. But some can do a lot more than others. And choose not to.
Maybe they gave more than that to charity every year?
And where does "obscene" start? £10m £1m £500k, £50k £10k?
But all it is in reality is a barter - the new owner has the painting, the seller has $450 mill less the fees - and the auction house have the fees. So the $450 mill is still in circulation and who knows what good the seller and the auctioneer might do with that money. The wealth existed before, as did the painting - and both still exist in totality.
Philosophical argument I suppose.
It's an investment. A gamble that the amount they're shelling out to own it is less than they can get by owning it and by selling it.
And they certainly won t be writing a cheque for the full amount right now.
First, they'll arrange to pay for it over a number of years. Second, part of the funding will come at ridiculously attractive rates from the auction house that sells it (they're in a desperately hard-fought market too: they all compete to be the auction house that sells the most expensive paintings...)
They'll have a huge cost of ownership too, in terms of maintenance, shipping and insurance.
But, they'll make money while they own it, by "loaning" it - for substantial fees - to galleries around the world. They, in turn, will recoup their costs by charging punters to look at it.
Put it in a gallery in London and a million people might pay £20 each to see it over three months. Find a sponsor to attach their name to it for another million. £21m recouped in London. Do it again in Paris, Rome, Madrid, Frankfurt, Stockholm, Dublin, Amsterdam, Prague, Porto and it's covered half its cost, in Europe. Do the same in North America, the Middle East, the Far East... get Moscow to compete with Beijing and Shanghai to show it... it quickly starts to make money.
And each loan will come with conditions attached, including that the gallery pays for maintenance, shipping and insurance.
Who makes money out of the maintenance of paintings? Galleries And auction houses usually.
Who makes money out of shipping? Multi-national corporations pushing commodities around the world.
Who makes money out of insurance? Insurance companies and brokers.
So, put together a consortium made up of a gallery, a multi national, an insurance company and an auction house and it very quickly stops being a "cost" and turns into a money-spinning enterprise.
Four hundred million quid is a lot of money for a picture to hang on the wall and look at. But, to the right consortium, it's a drop in the ocean compared to how much income it can generate for itself.
They won't lose money on this, whoever it is that's bought it.
Another "fast Ford" a Sierra Cosworth RS500 went for £112,500. And a genuine Only Fools And Horses Reliant Regal cost someone a tidy £41,625.
Key thing is that they still own the painting and its image rights so can sell it again. It doesn't depreciate like a car. Whether they can ever get the same price depends on the market. Some people believe that increases in art prices are due to uncertaintly in the stock market or political upheaval as people look to other investments.
In addition to the 2 you mentioned, nearly £80k for a MK1 Escort RS1600 and £50k for a MK3 Capri Brooklands.
Prices for classic cars have been rocketing for a while now. Even the cost of every day/mundane models have shot up as a result.
Point is there are lots of ways the painting can be made to make money. And I love the fact we are discussing it on a football forum, where players cost loads to buy, loads (in wages) to maintain, and their value depreciates massively.
I am hoping Roland's reading this to convince him that (as we all know) he's in the wrong game.