Jon and the Buffalo Bills

Aloha !

This is one of the most sensible posts in this topic exactly because you're using some information and use common sense, as opposed to just thinking "Forbes says this so he must have that amount of money". No one knows how much money he's got. He might have invested it in some projects and could have 3 times as much as Forbes says.

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

A job? No, I'd do it for nothing. But it's a great idea, and I appreciate the compliment!


"A very conservative SCENARIO...LET'S SAY he gets all his assets managed by an AVERAGE private wealth advisor"? DevilsSon is "just thinking" and doing "sensible" guesswork based on the available information just like I did. And the "unknown" billionaire is the Toronto-based Rogers media conglomerate, who at $7.6 billion could easily buy the team themselves. It doesn't make "common sense" that they would want a "mere" half-billionaire with very little operating capital to contribute as a partner.


The bottom line (if you'll pardon the expression) is that Jon hasn't got enough to put up the majority of either the franchise fee or the operating capital -- he'd be bidding alone if he did. But if he's fine with owning or running the team in name only, fine.

So when in 1996 a magazine writes he's worth $ 100M it's true and we can calculate with use of common sense how much he has today and when in 2014 a magazine (maybe the same?) writes he's worth $ 500M than it's not true?

Let's keep it that way: He has more money than anybody of us can imagine but he hasn't enough money to buy an NFL team alone.

8/6/14 Update: Pegulas seen pulling away in Bills race as Bon Jovi group reportedly will submit adjusted bid
And unless you DON'T mind being just a hired general manager, invest in something that you would own in EVERY sense of the word, with COMPLETE financial AND logistical control -- like a rock band, maybe?

Who said anything about a magazine in 1996? I think in 1996, magazines were reporting more. The 100M were part of my conservative assumption based on 75 million albums sold, etc etc everything I outlined there. It's a conservative assumption just to outline that the 500M is most definitely wrong.

As about Forbes, great magazine, but notorious for their 'worth' index to be wrong. I remember they featured this Romanian billionaire to be worth $800M and next month he sold his shares in a Petrol Company to the Kazakh Government for $3.5Bn. And that was within a month. Now he is listed at 1.5 Bn despite nothing having happened to his assets. Just makes you wonder.
http://www.forbes.com/profile/dinu-patriciu/

Another reason why I am so adamant about this is because I had a direct view into the accounts of a very famous English pop star who is often featured in these types of publications. His accounts with just ONE Private Bank alone are about the same what is reported in the press. No one keeps all their eggs in one basket. Not to mention that his arts collection is estimated at over $50M but is never part of any valuations.

But yeah. Whatever. I agree he can't pull it all by himself. All I am saying is that rocknation has a history for crazy hypotheses. Thinking that of all people Jon is some sort of muppet, that is severely understating the man. I am sure he is very much aware of what he is able to pull and what he is not. What his role will be in the ownership structure and how much influence he will have. Every step in Jon Bon's life and career has been perfectly calculated and let's face it, he turned an average band (post 2000 Jovi) into the biggest touring act of the planet and, despite only making average music, elevated the band to iconic status. The man is anything but STUPID. I give Jon Bon lots of slack whenever I can, but I'd never ever underestimate his business mind.

Jon knows the eight people, has been touring for decades, can still put on a good show and has the right management. Most of the average fans don't care for Jon's voice or for the setlists. They like the songs they know and the way Jon looks and acts. Nobody really cares for the last album it is the same with U2 or The Stones isn't it? He has a lot of help with analyzing what the people want, there are enough tools to crawl the web and it is not that hard to figure out the rest. He also dictates what journalists should ask him. It is pretty simple. He is the darling of these American morning shows so that he gets exposure when he needs it.
And really: ripping off fans via fan club events is just common sense because we all know many women would pay anything to stand next to Jon for a photo.
It is a combination of many things but it is not only working because Jon is smart.

Right -- if this story has a moral, it's that there's a difference between what you HAVE and what you're WORTH, which is calculated by subtracting what you OWE from what you have.

I think Jon was more shortsighted than naive. And I'm very proud of my track record of hypotheses, because they've been called crazy a LOT more often than they're called wrong!

What are you talking about? Net worth indices are calculated like balance sheets. Liabilities are removed from Assets and that is what is reported.But yeah...I have no idea what the hell stuff you've been taking again. Maybe you can tell me?

Back to Forbes because I was bored,the articles they feature on the guy I mentioned (Dinu Patriciu) quote his net worth at $800M, $1.5Bn, and $2.5Bn. This is all within a timespan of two years. They even say that he is committed to invest '1Bn' and in the same article he is quoted to be worth 1.5 Bn. As if someone would invest 2/3 of their wealth in ONE single project. In fact he is worth between 3.5 and 4Bn but by now that is completely irrelevant.

Yes. Poor short sighted Jon. What the hell. He's not Charlie Sheen. He's not ****in' Axl Rose. It's Jon Bon Jovi. I'm sure though, if he ever visits this forum, he'll be super glad rocknation is keeping an eye open to protect him from all the evil Canadian multi-billionaires. As about the stuff you usually post, I'll abstain from making more comments. I think everyone here has made a note of it though.

Yes. And because it's so super simple, there are exactly 6 other acts in the world with similar track records. The Stones, U2, McCartney, Madonna, AC/DC and Bruce Springsteen. They all made a billion+ in touring the last ten years because of getting the right tools to crawl the web and tell them what to do and because middle aged women want to take pictures of them.

What the hell is going on here? The latest few posts in this thread make me seriously question why on Earth I am even participating in this discussion.

Most of the billionaires net worth depends on the stock market as majority of their money is in the stock very few billionaires will have couple of billions lying in their checking account So a person net worth can go up and down a lot depending how their stock is doing on the stock market