I think he sold it not bought it.
Levy plans to stay long term but must consider takeover bids
- Thread starter agrdavidsfan
- Start date
I think he sold it not bought it.
vegassd
The ghost of Johnny Cash
- Aug 5, 2006
- 3,360
- 3,340
We shouldn't have the idea that just because Lewis is rich he should donate his own money into the club for player purchases. ENIC bought the club as an investment and run it as a business rather than a toy. That's just the way it is.
Having said that, if he has sold a painting in order to fund us buying Ndombele I won't be complaining!!
Kind of puts the madness of football transfer prices into perspective. Art which is a highly lucrative investment opportunity and obviously a craft that’s been around for hundreds of years. Yet the most expensive piece EVER sold will just about buy you a decent player with a shelf life of 7 years if you are lucky.
LexingtonSpurs
Well-Known Member
- Aug 27, 2013
- 13,456
- 39,042
Well, this piece sold for $90M - which is the highest price ever sold for a painting by a living artist.
The all-time high is $450M for a painting by Leonardo da Vinci
But, on a side note, it is a little odd for the artist - the painting originally sold for $18,000 in 1972. It sold for $50,000 just 6 months later, and now 46 years later it sells for $90M - so a lot of other people are profiting from the painting, but not the painter...
Lilbaz
Just call me Baz
- Apr 1, 2005
- 41,363
- 74,893
Now when the painter creates a new piece the value will be very high.
spursfan77
Well-Known Member
- Aug 13, 2005
- 46,680
- 104,957
That’s how it’s been reported but it’s not exactly correct, as I randomly know some background to this but not sure how much I can say
ComfortablyNumb
Well-Known Member
- Jun 28, 2011
- 4,006
- 6,161
Auction House ITK! Shit, this site has everything.
spursfan77
Well-Known Member
- Aug 13, 2005
- 46,680
- 104,957
I heard it was going to auction a few weeks ago. It had been on display in an exhibition in a museum in London. He could have been helping the museum out.
Like I’ve said previously, he’s much more into his art than THFC.
Lilbaz
Just call me Baz
- Apr 1, 2005
- 41,363
- 74,893
The artist probably has a load of pieces in his gallery he can sell off. I doubt he'll be short of a few quid.
ComfortablyNumb
Well-Known Member
- Jun 28, 2011
- 4,006
- 6,161
He’s an old man, and I’ve often wondered whether he’d at some point start spending some of he wealth he’s accumulated, hoping he’d drop a few quid Spurs’ way (more than he already has). But it’s his money. If art’s his thing, fair play.
SirNiNyHotspur
23 Years of Property, Concerts, Karts & Losing
- Apr 27, 2004
- 3,126
- 6,743
Maybe he can fill up our trophy cabinet with some nice artworks, make us all feel better...
We shouldn't have the idea that just because Lewis is rich he should donate his own money into the club for player purchases. ENIC bought the club as an investment and run it as a business rather than a toy. That's just the way it is.
Having said that, if he has sold a painting in order to fund us buying Ndombele I won't be complaining!!
And he could sell the player in a couple of years at a profit.
Gb160
Well done boys. Good process
- Jun 20, 2012
- 23,662
- 93,368
Much lower risk investment in the artwork, virtually guaranteed to increase in value.
Paintings aren't at risk of career ending injuries, or a dramatic loss of form.
MichaelPawson
Well-Known Member
- Aug 22, 2013
- 834
- 2,149
Well, except for this thing:
Also, the reason pieces of art cost $90.3 million is because the super rich use them as stores of wealth. It's more important for them to have an appreciating $90 million asset on paper than the individual artwork itself.
Lilbaz
Just call me Baz
- Apr 1, 2005
- 41,363
- 74,893
More than that it's a con. Say i have 4 van yankspurs worth £10m each. Person b has 4, person c has 4 and person d has 4. I sell one to person b for £20m he sells one to person c for £20m person c sells one to person d for £20m and i buy one from person d for £20m. Now a yankspur is worth £20m, nobody has really spent a penny but we've just doubled our wealth. Now we can use the paintings as security in borrowing money etc...
MichaelPawson
Well-Known Member
- Aug 22, 2013
- 834
- 2,149
vegassd
The ghost of Johnny Cash
- Aug 5, 2006
- 3,360
- 3,340
That is based on the idea that a painting has an intrinsic value (your £10m "starting" price) which it doesn't.
Things are only worth what people are willing to pay for them. That's the definition of market value. If somebody is willing to pay £35m for Andy Carroll it doesn't mean that he has magically got really good at football - it's just the market conditions at the time defining the value. The market at the time was willing to pay that amount so that's his value at the time.
Art is weird because it generally appreciates with age without an expiry date (unlike a footballer, or much else) and because it's so dependent on fashion it means the price can sky rocket for weird reasons. It's not a bunch of art owners flogging stuff to each other at increasing prices in order to fraud borrowing.
In your scenario, the people have not really increased their wealth because those sales are false and do not reflect the true market value. If you used the painting as leverage, the lender would want it appraised according to the public market where it's value of £10m would become apparent. That value would be based upon similar sales etc. and not just what your mate says he would buy it for. That's the boring truth unfortunately.
But we should ignore that and think of it this way... Joe Lewis used to own a big piece of paper that was worth twice as much as Andy Carroll ever was!
cider spurs
Well-Known Member
- Jul 5, 2016
- 9,400
- 23,731
Similar threads
