Spare a moment to think of the super-rich

JayZed

milliemonster wrote: »

Footballers? you mean that's a sport? I thought it was just a loose term for the modern semi good looking rich kid flashing his cash about with an anorexic no brain bimbo on his arm

Sorry, I thought we were talking about Wayne Rooney here?

dopester

!!!!!!? wrote: »

From The Times:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article5404353.ece

Can't say my heart is bleeding too much. How much wealth would you have to have in order to be totally comfortable for the rest of your life anyway - probably a lot less than these people still have. Still, I suppose some people have a different definition of comfortable.....

It does have consequences though. Wealth is an antidote to depression, not the cause.

Everyone is better off, rich and poor alike, when total wealth rises. In that I'm wealth gained through genuine business endeavours - not the HPI / credit-expansion bubble of the last 10 years.

We may take some satisfaction at the top-end wealthy people getting hit hard, but does that come at further cost to jobs, the drying up of seed-capital investment in new start-ups, dividends, and other things which retard economies even more, for the masses?

At the same time you can't protect the old wealth and people's investment decisions. They have no right to lock in all their wealth at the top if they left their monies in investments likely to crash with changed circumstances. As some of the old stars see their fortunes fade, doors of new opportunities can open to others.

globalds

It's very easy to be critical of the super-rich, and I agree that only so much personal wealth is needed for a comfortable life.

What I think is often overlooked by the nay-sayers is that many of these people got rich by using their talents to found great industrial / commercial empires, giving rise to employment opportunities, creating the need for other companies to supply materials and to sell their produce, thus enriching our economy ... before Clown spent it all of course!

Old news I know ...
Philip green seems to value himself rather more than anyone else in a business he aquired rather than built .

The retail entrepreneur Philip Green has banked £1.2bn after awarding himself the biggest pay cheque in British corporate history.

No tax to pay either thanks to giving it to the misses ..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2005/oct/21/executivesalaries.executivepay

dopester

Generali wrote: »

David Bowie was one of the first to do the same.

The Bowie Bonds were bought by Prudential Insurance Company for $55 million.

A 1997, ten-year issue, for 287 songs, with additional collateral included to insure the bond. So Bowie gave up the royalties for these songs for 10 years, for $55 million. Bowie now owns the rights and royalties to all his songs once again.

In March 2004, Moody's Investors Service lowered the bonds from an A3 rating (the seventh highest rating) to Baa3, one notch above junk status. This downgrade was prompted by lower-than-expected revenue "due to weakness in sales for recorded music." A downgrade to an unnamed company that guarantees the issue was also cited as a reason for the downgrade.

I wonder if Rooney's deal will work out more in his favour, or if the royalties will be much greater than £10 million for Investec. I hope they've written in some clauses which allow for a clawback is he gets in to any deep trouble - although I think he is pretty smart and decent overall off-the-pitch.

Airwolf1

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Clearly not all the rich feeling the pinch yet - good to see the Best of British nouveau riche spending it like it was going out of fashion:

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/showbiz/111744/Wayne-Rooneys-pound300k-Christmas.html



I must be getting old - I can remember the days when the news headlines about footballers were about them kicking a ball around a field.

I think the 2 items in bold are a conflict here :rotfl: