I know it sounds crazy on face value being he doesn't participate in the songwriting revenue and doesn't do much outside the Stones

But think about this...the guy has had 1 wife 1 daughter 1 house and basically stays at home when he is not working with the Stones...and has no lavish expenses...what has Charlie spent money on besides U.S. Civil War Memorabilia?

Mick has 7 kids, grandkids, ex wives, houses everywhere, travel and upkeep expenses...I can't even imagine what his monthly nut is.

Keith...somewhat in between Charlie's and Mick's life style now a days...but blew all his pre-Tattoo You $ on God knows what...

Ronnie..."never kept a dollar past sunset"...wonder if Keith wrote that about him back in 1971...no sense in discussing him with his well documented money management.

So is Charlie the richest?

PECMAN

I think his wife spends his paycheck on horses.
Acquiring fine ones, not betting on them.
So back to the salt mines.

A horse is a horse but it ain't a house full of kids and eventually grandkids and great grandkids...

PECMAN

Quote
Pecman
A horse is a horse but it ain't a house full of kids and eventually grandkids and great grandkids...

PECMAN

*what do you mean house full of grandkids/ greatgrandkids? These future creatures require support as well? Forget it, I won't even add a dog or cat to my tally, let alone an Arabian horse or 2.
Yeah, he's probably the richest.

Us the fans... we's the richest .....



ROCKMAN

Mick only had two wives. I don't know what his arrangement is with Bianca, but his second wife is now the problem of Rupert Murdoch. And most of Mick's children are grown, with incomes. There's no way Charlie's income could even come near Mick & Keith's. Those songwriting royalties have been compounding since the mid-60s, and I just heard Satisfaction used on some commercial the other day. Charlie's probably richer than Ronnie.

ZZZZZZZZZZZ

[www.celebritynetworth.com]

[www.celebritynetworth.com]

Mick
Keith
Charlie
Ronnie
Bill
Mick T

10 million 100 million what's the difference who cares they all have a great lifestyle and they deserve it they have bought much joy to the world for many years and will continue to do so for many more.

Nate

Quote
Nate
10 million 100 million what's the difference

I would be happy with the difference.



But never mind. It is an interesting question (academically) how an artist makes money.
And there will be a difference between artists that "perform" art and artists that "create".
But that's only on the revenue side of things. How they spend their money is up to them
and none of my interest.

Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away

Quote
35love
I think his wife spends his paycheck on horses.
Acquiring fine ones, not betting on them.
So back to the salt mines.

Around 200 horses in fact! The upkeep on 200 horses has to be higher than the upkeep on seven mostly grown kids and Bianca. No way Charlie is the richest.

In addition to his Devon estate, Charlie also owns a very nice apartment in Chelsea, London. Just up the road from Sir Mick actually.
He did have a place in France..maybe still has?
He was the first Stone to give up his tax exile status and return and live in the UK. 1977 I think. We still had a Labour Government then. I suspect that unlike the Glimmers he has been more prepared to pay his tax though he will still benefit from the RS Corporation's tax arrangements.
OK then, off shore arrangements.

Wealth is created by income minus spending.
Thus the basic question is: What generates income?
In the case of the members the Rolling Stones it is work, doing shows, making and selling records, merchandise (if you really can call this work), revenues from royalties and – not to be forgotten – revenues form financial investments.
The biggest difference between the income of the individual band members obviously results from the fact that Jagger and Richards wrote the songs (and hence get the royalties), while Wood and Watts are just musicians (thus the huge share of their band related income derives form selling records and touring).

But I guess a huge difference is being created by their financial investments – a factor about which we don't know too much. But if anybody in the band has been wise enough (most likely Jagger and – maybe Watts) they surely made much more money by clever investments than by touring, recording and/or writing songs (anyone who was quite wealthy by the end of the 70s and who has not become rich during the days of Voodoo Reagonomics and/or during the days of the dotcom bubble is an idiot or had the wrong financial advisors).

Royalties. That´s the difference. Mick and Keith makes more money for all copies sold of LP´s, EP´s, singles, CD´s, cassettes, VHS´s, DVD´s etc. And they get better paid every time a Stones song is played on radio, every time a Stones song is covered by others, every time a Stones song is used in a commercial etc.

Quote
The Worst.
Royalties. That´s the difference. Mick and Keith makes more money for all copies sold of LP´s, EP´s, singles, CD´s, cassettes, VHS´s, DVD´s etc. And they get better paid every time a Stones song is played on radio, every time a Stones song is covered by others, every time a Stones song is used in a commercial etc.

I bet without The Stones, ABKCO would be one very small enterprise.

as I said before: financial investments is a key factor.
Imagine how many songs Jagger/Richards must write to catch up with someone who had invested $ 1.000.000 in let's say Apple in 1998 or in Microsoft in the early 80s?

They didn't even have to write. Bittersweet Symphony sold 250,000 copies the first week in UK alone.

Quote
24FPS
Mick only had two wives. I don't know what his arrangement is with Bianca, but his second wife is now the problem of Rupert Murdoch. And most of Mick's children are grown, with incomes. There's no way Charlie's income could even come near Mick & Keith's. Those songwriting royalties have been compounding since the mid-60s, and I just heard Satisfaction used on some commercial the other day. Charlie's probably richer than Ronnie.

Jagger and Hall were never legally wed though, were they? I don't entirely know the circumstances, I don't believe it was a 'recognised' marriage, as such.

According to Wikipedia, Jagger and Hall's 'marriage' was declared invalid by the High Court of England and Wales in 1999. Apparently, Hall was totally unaware. What a cunning git that Mick is!

Slewan, I agree times have changed. The Rolling Stones have generated tons of money after 1989. This is all because of massive tours were they´ve sold millions of rather expensive tickets + t-shirts, memorabilia & souvenirs. And not that just that, they´ve always managed to find big sponsors for their tours, willing to inject millions of dollars. And I guess Charlie and Ronnie get a decent piece of the cake. But before 1989, things were different. The Rolling Stones did not generate lots of money from touring in the 1960s, despite playing more than 1000 gigs. Tickets were not expensive, and definitely not outrageous like today. Royalties earned Mick and Keith far more money than the others. That´s why they were able to buy estates such as Stargroves and Redlands. Brian bought Cotchford Farm, but couldn´t really afford it and was in debts for the rest of his life. When he died, he still owned money to the carpenters who renovated his estate. At end of the 70s/early 80s, The Rolling Stones released some of their best selling albums: Some Girls, Emotional Rescue and Tattoo You – again providing Mick and Keith with much more money than the rest. Bill Wyman wrote that he didn´t feel financially secure to leave The Stones before after the Urban Jungle tour in 1990. And at that time, if I remember correctly, he estimated his total fortune to be “only” $2 millions – and a large part of that came from the Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle. My point is, prior to 1989, Bill, Charlie & Ronnie didn´t earn big amounts. Michael Cohl and the new structure of touring changed all that. And I guess Charlie would have left The Rolling Stones long time ago if it hadn´t been for that change.

Quote
Voodookitten76
Around 200 horses in fact! The upkeep on 200 horses has to be higher than the upkeep on seven mostly grown kids and Bianca. No way Charlie is the richest.

Unless your horse is out riding without a saddle all the time.

[gonetworth.com]


160 million

Quote
Voodookitten76

Quote
35love
I think his wife spends his paycheck on horses.
Acquiring fine ones, not betting on them.
So back to the salt mines.

Around 200 horses in fact! The upkeep on 200 horses has to be higher than the upkeep on seven mostly grown kids and Bianca. No way Charlie is the richest.

Well I guess we would have to know what these 200 horses are being used for. Do they just watch them graze 24/7 or are they producing income (purchased for investment reasons). And just because she spent 10 or 50 million on them does not mean that money is gone. They can always sell them and recoup some, most or all their money back. So the horses are probably an asset (as good as cash in the bank).

Having said that, you are right, vet and food bills are very high for that many horses...

Quote
slewan
as I said before: financial investments is a key factor.
Imagine how many songs Jagger/Richards must write to catch up with someone who had invested $ 1.000.000 in let's say Apple in 1998 or in Microsoft in the early 80s?

Agree slewan. I don't think anyone knows (who doesn't have a reason to know), what Charlie used his RS money on. He could have been investing for the last 50 years and now have more than the rest put together. Turned 100 million into 500 million or more...

Quote
leteyer
ZZZZZZZZZZZ

[www.celebritynetworth.com]

[www.celebritynetworth.com]

That's a funny alternate universe for Charlie. Dick Taylor stayed on as bassist, as did Stu. And they all rose to fame after Charlie joined the Stones a year after they formed. Jeez. It's not like Wikipedia isn't out there.

Okay, I don't really have a detailed interest in their personal business affairs/ sum totals/ etc., but this statement made: (copied below)
'wealthy by the end of the 70s and who has not become rich during the days of Voodoo Reagonomics and/or during the days of the dotcom bubble is an idiot or had the wrong financial advisors'

And for those folks who lost in the banking crisis? USA Mortgage banking fiasco? You remember, real estate bubble, and no- one caught it in time/ those of us who were giving warnings no- one believed, including federal reserve chairman
(the movie 'The Big Short' sums it up Wall Street style)

Let us not judge please, it's a tricky place out here.

Quote
More Hot Rocks
[gonetworth.com]


160 million

And Keith in the neighbourhood of 350m....I sure as hell would not complain with 160m in the bank!

Quote
35love
Okay, I don't really have a detailed interest in their personal business affairs/ sum totals/ etc., but this statement made: (copied below)
'wealthy by the end of the 70s and who has not become rich during the days of Voodoo Reagonomics and/or during the days of the dotcom bubble is an idiot or had the wrong financial advisors'

And for those folks who lost in the banking crisis? USA Mortgage banking fiasco? You remember, real estate bubble, and no- one caught it in time/ those of us who were giving warnings no- one believed, including federal reserve chairman

big investors didn't loose too much (at least not in relation to what they gained before) – thanks to politicians helping to save banks etc by willingly donating tax payers' money

No Ringo is...



2 1 2 0

Quote
slewan
Wealth is created by income minus spending.
Thus the basic question is: What generates income?
In the case of the members the Rolling Stones it is work, doing shows, making and selling records, merchandise (if you really can call this work), revenues from royalties and – not to be forgotten – revenues form financial investments.
The biggest difference between the income of the individual band members obviously results from the fact that Jagger and Richards wrote the songs (and hence get the royalties), while Wood and Watts are just musicians (thus the huge share of their band related income derives form selling records and touring).

But I guess a huge difference is being created by their financial investments – a factor about which we don't know too much. But if anybody in the band has been wise enough (most likely Jagger and – maybe Watts) they surely made much more money by clever investments than by touring, recording and/or writing songs (anyone who was quite wealthy by the end of the 70s and who has not become rich during the days of Voodoo Reagonomics and/or during the days of the dotcom bubble is an idiot or had the wrong financial advisors).

Any of them involved with "Panama Gate"?