Random Conspiracy theory about Curlin

[Danzig]

rather convoluted.
still doesn't explain why curlin would be running, rather than playing it safe-especially since the other three purchases all went into retirement after the bc.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by Danzig

rather convoluted.
still doesn't explain why curlin would be running, rather than playing it safe-especially since the other three purchases all went into retirement after the bc.

Um, SURE IT does, they wouldn't be able to stand him now ANYWAYS becuase of the lawsuit and the 20% ownership of the jailbirds.....

[smuthg]

It wouldn't surprise me if Curlin ends up standing at Adena Springs... aren't Jess and Frank pretty tight?

[Danzig]

actually, they could have stood him somewhere. trick is whether any monies collected would have to be held in escrow until everything is cleared up. it's not as tho all these plaintiffs who are looking at curlin like he may be their lotto ticket are helping pay his expenses.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by Danzig

actually, they could have stood him somewhere. trick is whether any monies collected would have to be held in escrow until everything is cleared up. it's not as tho all these plaintiffs who are looking at curlin like he may be their lotto ticket are helping pay his expenses.

Do you think that the owners want these random ass people getting a piece of that breeding deal? I'll answer for you, no...

[ELA]

I don't think the "20%" problem is a problem at all. The "plaintifss" interest -- they have lack of control, a minority interest, lack of marketability, etc. -- all reasons that their interest is worth less than 20% of whatever Curlin is worth. The sum of the parts is not equal to the sum of the whole in this particular case.

The plaintiff's have lost every motion they've made before the court, will not be able to force a liquidation or buy out and can scream shareholder suppression from the highest mountaintops. I don't understand how the potential litigation affects anything. They are along for the ride. I don't see it any different. Jackson has more than enough money to litigate.

I did wonder why the others sold out. I don't think your theory or something similar is that absolutely unbelievable or impossible. There might be "claw backs" or something, residuals, etc. Sanan especially could have negotiated shares, seasons, etc.

Eric

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by ELA

I don't think the "20%" problem is a problem at all. The "plaintifss" interest -- they have lack of control, a minority interest, lack of marketability, etc. -- all reasons that their interest is worth less than 20% of whatever Curlin is worth. The sum of the parts is not equal to the sum of the whole in this particular case.

The plaintiff's have lost every motion they've made before the court, will not be able to force a liquidation or buy out and can scream shareholder suppression from the highest mountaintops. I don't understand how the potential litigation affects anything. They are along for the ride. I don't see it any different. Jackson has more than enough money to litigate.

I did wonder why the others sold out. I don't think your theory or something similar is that absolutely unbelievable or impossible. There might be "claw backs" or something, residuals, etc. Sanan especially could have negotiated shares, seasons, etc.

Eric

George Bolton got out simply because of the risk of running the year v. the lucrative financial reward. Can't say about Sanan.

And the plaintiffs have NOT lost every motion they've filed. Expect Angela Ford back on ATR this week..

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Scav

Do you think that the owners want these random ass people getting a piece of that breeding deal? I'll answer for you, no...

i think jess jackson is an old man who would rather have a horse with an earnings record and a legacy to build then wonder 'what if' on his death bed. as for the plaintiffs and midnight cry, i think that's only a small part of the issue. i think bolton and sanan took the money and ran, as it's the same money they'd have gotten with any stud deal. no risk involved.
as for the 20%-the plaintiffs can only touch midnight cry's portion-jackson won't get the other 20% anyway, why would he care who did?

[Scav]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i think jess jackson is an old man who would rather have a horse with an earnings record and a legacy to build then wonder 'what if' on his death bed. as for the plaintiffs and midnight cry, i think that's only a small part of the issue. i think bolton and sanan took the money and ran, as it's the same money they'd have gotten with any stud deal. no risk involved.
as for the 20%-the plaintiffs can only touch midnight cry's portion-jackson won't get the other 20% anyway, why would he care who did?

Are you out of your mind in regards to the same amount via a stud deal? Do you realize how much horses make at stud, lets say he stands for 100k to start, and covers 200 mares, all realistic numbers, that is 20 million, IN HIS FIRST YEAR, and lets say he can cover mares for 10 years, that is 200 million, that is 50 million just for 25%, do you realistically think they were bought out for 50 million? And what happens if he turns into a 250k stallion, thus numbers increase by 2.5.....

20% of 200 million is 40 million, 20% of 10 million is 2 million for these plantiffs,