$450 million for a painting.

[nightporter]

Personally I think it's obscene, probably has tax implications or money laundering.

[glosterred]

Or just a very rich person with more money than sense

[drfchound]

Personally I think it's obscene, probably has tax implications or money laundering.

Would you have objected if it was you who had sold the painting ?

I doubt it.

[wilts rover]

1% of the world's population holds 50% of the world's wealth - this is what they do with it.

I wonder if the general public will ever get to see it again, most of these things go straight into a bank vault, although the talk is it was bought by a Saudi prince for their new gallery.

[MachoMadness]

If you have $450m to spend on a painting, you're probably not the sort of person who'd miss it anyway. It's not like it's going to be hung on a wall, it's an investment.

[andy didcott]

And 60 years ago it went for 45 quid.

[GazLaz]

If you have $450m to spend on a painting, you're probably not the sort of person who'd miss it anyway. It's not like it's going to be hung on a wall, it's an investment.

He’s not spent the money like you say, he’s invested it. If he thinks the painting will be worth more in years to come then it’s an intelligent thing to do. We should do the same with footballers.

[ravenrover]

Wonder if it has a place reserved in The Vatican?

[BillyStubbsTears]

If you have $450m to spend on a painting, you're probably not the sort of person who'd miss it anyway. It's not like it's going to be hung on a wall, it's an investment.

We should do the same with footballers.

I can think of a few we've bought over the years that should be hung from a wall.