led zep maniack Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 Or you could read the rest of the thread, with evidence that is far more convincing than 'your guess'. A THREAD IS EVIDENCE??? PLEASE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bouncing~ship Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 If you netted 5,000,000.00 from the lottery, would you really need to invest it in anything risky? A conservative investment in the bond market would probably return enough interest to live comfortably and there would be NO risk of losing your principle. The problem is a lot of people get needlessly greedy and starting employing risky investment plans. Having proper asset allocation is also a good concept to employ and substantially reduces risk. Let me know if you need any help, I'm pretty good with this shit. 5 million to get a ball rolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cactus Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 A THREAD IS EVIDENCE??? PLEASE. The links to reputable sources in this thread are much better evidence than someone who comes on and says "IT IS LIKE AT LEAST LIKE $300MIL EASY. BALLPARK FIGURE." If you're speculating, then speculate and let others know that you are doing so. Otherwise, quote your sources. I have quoted a reputable source. If you have any more information to add, then please do..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted February 27, 2008 Author Share Posted February 27, 2008 70 million British pounds = 137.62700 million U.S. dollars That according to the april 2007 report that can be found on this thread. It also states that it is based on Public accounts ( stocks,) and private accounts are not tallied in this finding. THATS A LOW BALL FIGURE THERES MORE ELSE WHERE. Yes, you are right. Thats why i said that i thought The four member must of split the proceeds pretty evenly. Page and plant still got more, but not as much as primary song writers normally get. But then again, they only sold records in the last 30 years. Plus inflation is a bitch. The rolling stones bigger bang tour grossed 433 million. Now if you just say Zep completed the whole 77 tour with 1.3 million people at $10 a ticket. (They grossed $762,000 for 76,000 tickets at the Pontiac silver dome) thats only 13 million dollars. I could be off, but not more then a couple million. Source: Billboard magizine and Led Zeppelin: The concert files by Dave Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cactus Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 Plus inflation is a bitch. The rolling stones bigger bang tour grossed 433 million. Now if you just say Zep completed the whole 77 tour with 1.3 million people at $10 a ticket. (They grossed $762,000 for 76,000 tickets at the Pontiac silver dome) thats only 13 million dollars. I could be off, but not more then a couple million. Source: Billboard magizine and Led Zeppelin: The concert files by Dave Lewis This is true, however with decent investments the inflation shouldn't devalue their money as much as your figures would suggest. $13m in 1977 invested at a conservative 5%p.a would be $65mil now. But still not the massive figure you quoted for the Stones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evster2012 Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 Now if you just say Zep completed the whole 77 tour with 1.3 million people at $10 a ticket. (They grossed $762,000 for 76,000 tickets at the Pontiac silver dome) thats only 13 million dollars. I could be off, but not more then a couple million. Source: Billboard magizine and Led Zeppelin: The concert files by Dave Lewis Do you know what the costs are to finance a tour like that? You're talking GROSSES. There's hotels, airplanes (know what it costs to fly your own private 727?), transport of equipment, union dues for riggers, lighting, equipment, venue fees, promotion, dragon suits... Then there's the record labels cut of gross sales, recording studios, and promotion of that product, and pressing the vinyl and packaging (to which Zeppelin spared no expense. Hello, 6 different covers for ITTOD???). Point is, there are bills to pay. It doesn't go straight from the cash register to their pockets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted February 27, 2008 Author Share Posted February 27, 2008 Do you know what the costs are to finance a tour like that? You're talking GROSSES. There's hotels, airplanes (know what it costs to fly your own private 727?), transport of equipment, union dues for riggers, lighting, equipment, venue fees, promotion, dragon suits... Then there's the record labels cut of gross sales, recording studios, and promotion of that product, and pressing the vinyl and packaging (to which Zeppelin spared no expense. Hello, 6 different covers for ITTOD???). Point is, there are bills to pay. It doesn't go straight from the cash register to their pockets. Ye, i understand rich pay people pay bills. I used grosses because i don't have thier w-2's on hand. But it's all relitive. Rolling stones still grossed 433 mil. while zep grossed 13 mil. but lets say they took home a 1/4 after all the bills. Zep take is 3.25 and the stones take is 100 million. Maybe they took home less then a 1/4? but the percentage still works. and the Stones still have 3 more tours that grossed over 275 mil. Didn't Zep have in their contact that the record company Atlantic pay for the Album covers. It's was mentioned in a Documentary about them. I have an idea how "Normal" record contracts work, but I'm just talking for zeppelin's contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted February 27, 2008 Author Share Posted February 27, 2008 This is true, however with decent investments the inflation shouldn't devalue their money as much as your figures would suggest. $13m in 1977 invested at a conservative 5%p.a would be $65mil now. But still not the massive figure you quoted for the Stones. Remeber after all the cost's are paid out, zep take is still splitted 4 ways (or close). so maybe they got really lucky and took home 1 - 2 mil. which i think is off because i don't know exact numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JethroTull Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 You all disgust me, trying to figure out how much money people are worth. It's not like you're named in any of their wills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SIBLY Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 no more than 30 or 40 at knebworth....that's a lot of money. It's a long time ago but I think my Knebworth ticket was either £7.50 or £15. All the tickets were the same price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.alchemist Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 It's the richness of the music they have given us that is the most important thing here surely David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peppermint Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 All I have heard is that Robert Plant was worth 60 million, excluding properties, which he has a few, but that was a few years back, but I do agree, it is not about how rich they are, and what they have it is as David,has said the music is the riches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave2007 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Sufice to say they are all comfortable. The Times 'Rich List' is an estimate...based mainly on published/available documents they can find in the UK......the rest is estimated. Similarly. with Bonhams estate when he died (£434.000) ... I worked at the Inland Revenue at the time and queried this with a much older/wiser colleague....he just said that is just "England and Wales"(which is all that was required to be published in a will...was the inference I got from him ). I never queried it further so I don't know if my colleague was right or wrong. But on the subject of money....my fave Jason Bonham story was from the early eighties when he was in a yuppie bar in the City of London (think Wall Street if you are American) and found himself in the same bar as all the young hungry champagne buying whizz kids. (at the bar) Jason just ordered/received a drink.....stood next to yuppie at the bar. Yuppie: "Here's to being rich and famous" "Jason" " Here's to being famous" (Glasses clink) Yuppie: " What, don't you want to be rich ??? " Jason: "Oh...I'm already rich ! " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainsbarre Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Remeber after all the cost's are paid out, zep take is still splitted 4 ways (or close). so maybe they got really lucky and took home 1 - 2 mil. which i think is off because i don't know exact numbers. Actually, I'm not sure, but i think it could've been split 5 ways, 1 share going to Peter Grant. There was a quote that Peter Grant had said to the guy who used to manage the Yardbirds something along lines of "Thank you for giving me the opportunity to earn £250m" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted March 15, 2008 Author Share Posted March 15, 2008 Actually, I'm not sure, but i think it could've been split 5 ways, 1 share going to Peter Grant. There was a quote that Peter Grant had said to the guy who used to manage the Yardbirds something along lines of "Thank you for giving me the opportunity to earn £250m" I consider grant cost. I don't think he would've token a fifth, i do belive all his little other things may add up to a fith. like exc. producer on the albums and Swan Song records. but if grant did earn £250m thats 508 million in USD, so im assuming thats what led zeppelin as a band earned. wich if you split it somwhat close to four ways thats 150 mil a piece which so happens to be how much Page and Plant supposely are worth. but this argument is flaw in someways too. as i assume they invested and Page and plant just gained more money in there life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainsbarre Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 but if grant did earn £250m thats 508 million in USD, so im assuming thats what led zeppelin as a band earned. wich if you split it somwhat close to four ways thats 150 mil a piece which so happens to be how much Page and Plant supposely are worth. but this argument is flaw in someways too. as i assume they invested and Page and plant just gained more money in there life. No I'd agree with that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainsbarre Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 well, according to the 2007 Sunday Times Rich List, Jimmy Page and Robert Plant are estimated as having £70m each, in today's exchange rates that's $US142m Roger Waters and Dave Gilmour both come in at £85m each ($172m) Here are some other music wealth assessments: Roger Taylor £70m Ronnie Wood £75m George Michael £75m Brian May £75m Charlie Watts £90m Robbie Williams £95m Ozzy and Sharon Osbourne £100m Rod Stewart £105m David Bowie £120m Barry and Robin Gibb £120m Phil Collins £135m Ringo Starr £140m Eric Clapton £140m Sting £185m Sir Tom Jones £190m Keith Richards £190m Sir Mick Jagger £215m Sir Elton John £225m Madonna and Guy Ritchie £275m Sir Paul McCartney £725m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peppermint Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 very, very rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted March 15, 2008 Author Share Posted March 15, 2008 well, according to the 2007 Sunday Times Rich List, Jimmy Page and Robert Plant are estimated as having £70m each, in today's exchange rates that's $US142m Roger Waters and Dave Gilmour both come in at £85m each ($172m) Here are some other music wealth assessments: Roger Taylor £70m Ronnie Wood £75m George Michael £75m Brian May £75m Charlie Watts £90m Robbie Williams £95m Ozzy and Sharon Osbourne £100m Rod Stewart £105m David Bowie £120m Barry and Robin Gibb £120m Phil Collins £135m Ringo Starr £140m Eric Clapton £140m Sting £185m Sir Tom Jones £190m Keith Richards £190m Sir Mick Jagger £215m Sir Elton John £225m Madonna and Guy Ritchie £275m Sir Paul McCartney £725m When your're in the top 3 of biggest bands of all-time, and youre not even in the top 20 in money, and you don't want to tour becasue it's not about the money. Thats showing class. Robbie williams and tom jones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainsbarre Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 When your're in the top 3 of biggest bands of all-time, and youre not even in the top 20 in money, and you don't want to tour becasue it's not about the money. Thats showing class. Robbie williams and tom jones? Tom Jones used to tour A LOT, like every second year, so a lot of his wealth would be because of that. And Tom was always playing to good size audiences of over 5,000 people a show. Led Zep's wealth is in the position it is because they haven't toured at all in the last 28 years. And Robert has only been playng small-size venues of 2,000, not enough to shoot the bank balance up. Although interesting that the Times still evaluate Jimmy and Robert on the same amount of money, they must feel there's been no money in Robert's solo career. Robbie William's wealth is solely down to that massive record deal he signed a few years back. $100m for 7 albums or something. However, a lot of that was hoping he'd crack America, which he's still failed to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted March 15, 2008 Author Share Posted March 15, 2008 sounds like the Mariah Carey deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainsbarre Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 Yeah it was an insane deal, and there was a lot of speculation in the music press at the time with headlines like "Would you pay $100m for this guy?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted March 15, 2008 Author Share Posted March 15, 2008 If i was an artist, i would almost be scared to take a deal like that. i still would though, you always heard about bands bieng controlled too much by thier record companies, i would just assume with a deal like that, it would be horriblie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandra Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 well, according to the 2007 Sunday Times Rich List, Jimmy Page and Robert Plant are estimated as having £70m each, in today's exchange rates that's $US142m Roger Waters and Dave Gilmour both come in at £85m each ($172m) Here are some other music wealth assessments: Roger Taylor £70m Ronnie Wood £75m George Michael £75m Brian May £75m Charlie Watts £90m Robbie Williams £95m Ozzy and Sharon Osbourne £100m Rod Stewart £105m David Bowie £120m Barry and Robin Gibb £120m Phil Collins £135m Ringo Starr £140m Eric Clapton £140m Sting £185m Sir Tom Jones £190m Keith Richards £190m Sir Mick Jagger £215m Sir Elton John £225m Madonna and Guy Ritchie £275m Sir Paul McCartney £725m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted March 16, 2008 Author Share Posted March 16, 2008 Does anybody relize who owns the rights to the Happy Birthday sing and the theme song from I love lucy. Sir paul mccartney. Do you know who owns the rights to Blackbird or any other beatles song, Micheal Jackson (or he used to) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.