2024 - a mark in time?

[quizzaciously]

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/01073534/officers

David Gilmour added his wife as a director, oh no, he must be ill, maybe he caught AIDS off MK.

lol
these comments, lol, sure he needs money like all of us need it to buy stuff. but the difference with us is, he has boatloads of it, and it KEEPS pouring in. his Studio can make a loss for the next 20 years and it would not dent his fortune even the tiniest bit. maybe i can add it as a tax expense. really, i find these assumptiond about his lingering on the verge of bankruptcy a bit funny. his wealth allows him to live on a whole different level as 99% of us on this forum do. our monetary worries are most definitely NOT his.

Nobody in this thread mentioned anything about bankruptcy.
Of course our monetary worries are not his. We don't have multiple properties including a riverside mansion, an expensive car collection, a world-class studio, a world-class band of musicians, a management/accounting/marketing team, etc.
What people usually disregard is that the more money you have, the bigger your expenses are and the more money you need.
The financial concerns I mentioned in my posts are the ones Mark himself mentioned in different interviews. It's not a fabrication.

And also that it doesn't matter how rich you are, if you are running a bussiness and it looses money, I guess at some point the bussiness would have to close, I'm not an expert on the subject, of course.

Another simple question... If you don't need money, why you would "only" give 25% to charity? I'd give it all to charity like David Gilmour did with his insane auction. Of course, nobody asks you to donate anything, but just from the logic perspective it doesn't make sense. "I don't need the money, but I'll keep 75%, thank you very much".

[Chris W]

And also that it doesn't matter how rich you are, if you are running a bussiness and it looses money, I guess at some point the bussiness would have to close

In reality it's Mark's personal studio. he may have registered it as a business, losing money, as a tax deductible. McCartney has his own studio and absolutely no other projects are recorded there except for Paul's.

[Chris W]

Another simple question... If you don't need money, why you would "only" give 25% to charity?

Who knows? Why does the fabulously wealthy billionaire Jeff Bezos pay his Amazon staff the minimum wage, while flogging them to death?
Maybe Mark wants to make sure Kitty and the kids enjoy an incredible standard of living should anything happen to him?
From the people I've met, I find multi-millionaires are never satisfied unless they are a billionaire. And a billionaire is never satisfied unless they are in the top 5 billionaire list.

[dustyvalentino]

Another simple question... If you don't need money, why you would "only" give 25% to charity?

Who knows? Why does the fabulously wealthy billionaire Jeff Bezos pay his Amazon staff the minimum wage, while flogging them to death?
Maybe Mark wants to make sure Kitty and the kids enjoy an incredible standard of living should anything happen to him?
From the people I've met, I find multi-millionaires are never satisfied unless they are a billionaire. And a billionaire is never satisfied unless they are in the top 5 billionaire list.

True. I don't understand what drives these billionaire guys to keep working . I'd have retired to a quiet life after making a fraction of their wealth.

I would say about MK though that if he was solely motivated by money he could have kept on flogging the DS horse. Instead, he went from playing the last UK DS gig at Woburn Abbey (50/60 thousand?) to his first UK solo gig at the Ulster hall, Belfast (capacity under 2,000).

[ds1984]

Another simple question... If you don't need money, why you would "only" give 25% to charity? I'd give it all to charity like David Gilmour did with his insane auction. Of course, nobody asks you to donate anything, but just from the logic perspective it doesn't make sense. "I don't need the money, but I'll keep 75%, thank you very much".

I would suggest that you take this thing by the wrong side.
This is not a question of "needing money" but simply to "deal with money".

Myself needed to reflect on it because I found it strange the first time I read about this "25% charity donation".
But this is Mark deciding to sell a part from his collection for whatever reason.
I would feel wrong to question the fact he's keeping the money to him.

Basic fact it wasn't meant to be a charity auction and nobody would have dared to question this.
But still, Mark had the generosity to give a percentage to charity.
And then the question arise : only 25 % why not 100% after all, he does not need that money?
Utterly wrong questionning for my part even if I did not avoid from it at first.

[qjamesfloyd]

They were Mark's guitars, he can do what he likes with the money, simple.