NET Worth

the reason he doesn't appear on 'cribs' isn't anything to do with the fact that he has a small house. the pictures i have seen show quite the contrary....his house is huge including a pub, a recording studio and an annexe wich richie stays in when he comes over to record.

why presume that because a person earns a lot of money that they have to spend it? i would guess that the band members are all very shrewd with their earnings and have the majority tied up in very profitable investments. how profitable the soul are is not something i know much about but being that it has been going a relatively small amount of time, i would hazard a guess that outgoings far exceed the revenue it's generating at the moment (does anybody know if they are a listed company?)

wake up gaz, most 'stars' don't blow all their cash on women, drugs and the like.

I don't think jon invested in soul just because of the fact that he wants to earn money. I would say that a american football team for sure isn't the best investment you can do.

i didn't say it was the reason but he sure as hell didn't invest to make a massive loss. i'm an idealistic accountant, i look at making profits first and foremost if giving back to the community and having fun is a by-product then so-be-it but most investors are out to make money.

Of course money is the main motive, but still, if just was money I could give jon someother advices.

If you look at a 60 year perspective money in stocks are the ones who grows the most.

only if you spread your investment amongst a wide range of stock. you need a wide and varied portfolio to get rid of the specific risk associated with products and then you've still got market risks to contend with. this is gettin rather off-topic now :s

as for your first comment....once again, i didn't say money was his only, or even sole, motive. read my original post.

Yes and no. When you places your money in stocks you don't do (or you shouldn't do it anyway) it because you want to earn money in the short run, you do it because of two reasons, it's better then having the money on the bank and you do take an industrial responsibility. "Risk" is more or less something that appears in the short run, in a perspective of 60 years, the risks are quite small.
of course you do have to consider the fact that there are a lot of things that can happen, but you can't hardly classify it as risks, because then everything are risks.

There are a lot of studies that says that money in stocks for sure are the most efficient way to generate money, in the long run.

I know you didn't write that! I read your first post at least 2 times before i posted...

And now we are so off topic that it's hard to find the way back...

apologies for not looking at the 60year part. at the end of the day, those investing for 60years or so are going to be the big pension funds and insurance companies and not joe public so that doesn't apply to the majority of investors, jon included. and no matter what the timescale, there will be risks if you don't spread you investment. if you had all of your shares in a company that solely produced vhs players (unlikely i know) 20 or so years ago and they were unable to keep up with changes in technology (influx of dvd players into market) and subsequently went out of business, your investment wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on. i know it's all relative in the long term and things balance out eventually but most people don't look at things that far into the future.

The Soul franchise cost $16 million with Jon and what's-his-name investing equal amounts and Richie making a minority investment.There may be other minority holders too. I don't know. I don't really care. Also, the Soul is not loosing money. They're the most profitable team in the AFL financially. Don't confuse the game record with the financial record.

i wasn't. the point i was making is that the likelihood of making vast profits in your second year of business are slim. i'd be interested to see last year's financial statements, i may try and dig them out.

This is not a accepted theory.. But the fact is that the most technical inventions are created with in the big companies, such as Sony, Philips, ABB, and Nokia and so on. How many of the VHS-player producers is gone from the market (the big ones..)? Not that many... they all started to produce DVD-players instead, mostly because it was their invention!
The same with ABB, they were the leader of the High voltage products for a 100 years ago, and they still are.
What actually can flip the market is a techno economic paradigm, but isn't a well accepted theory either.

But of course you are right about that you have to spread your investments, but that's common sense.

And to give the economic system a fair chance, you have to look at it in a wide perspective, otherwise every high and low conjuncture would make it impossible to analyze.

I went even further of topic with this one! And as I said, these theories are not accepted by many (but a few such as schumpeterians...), so don’t take my word for it (even if I tend to believe in them)