Harness Syndicate rort

[kilcoyne 196]

To Sheldon and Ashoka. Fully agree with your sentiments. But it seems to be hard to convince some people that use this site that the simple answer is .... IF YOU DONT LIKE IT THEN YOU DONT NEED TO GET INVOLVED....... When I first joined this site it was all about people who were interested in racing horses. Lately it seems to be all about people who lost money on the punt or look at so called rip offs by the racing fraternity.  Time to realise that no one is forcing them to spend their hard earned on something that "MIGHT" give them a return on their investment.

[JackSprat 947]

Once these "syndicates" get beyond 100 members, they're more of a "social club" than a syndicate, as such. So the financial side of things starts to become irrelevant, as there's virtually no chance of a positive return on your investment, short of the "syndicate" being lucky enough to stumble upon the next Changeover.

 

So from that point of view, it's unlikely to make any difference to those silly enough to join, whether their $500 buys them a 1/100th or a 1/1000th share of the "syndicate".

 

Yes, the promoters should be rewarded for the financial risk they're taking, and their time and effort to manage the syndicate, but in this case the numbers are way over the top. If they were reasonable, we wouldn't be talking about them!

 

It's got nothing to do with "tall poppies", "grippers", anything personal about the promoters, to point out that financial side of this syndicate is a shocker, and that much better deals are available.

 

This syndicate is a rip-off, pure and simple. The promoters are the only ones likely to win anything, and taking pot shots at the messenger, won't alter that message.

 

As has been mentioned already, nobody is forced to join, and I for one, will be very interested to see how many suckers actually do..

[Ashoka 1,179]

JackSprat...

 

The required retort to your comments is inherent in your own words.

 

The social aspect of this endeavour is clear and plain.

For a modest investment given the period of time this venture covers, a person who otherwise would have, in most instances, no tangible connection to our sport and industry, can become a participant and be treated in the same manner as those with a much larger investment.

 

I have previously commented on the quality of the updates from Mr Kennard that I have seen. These were sent to me by a friend who is a member of another syndicate that Mr Kennard has run.

 

You use the word "suckers" to describe those who join up. If those who do join such ventures find themselves to be suckers, where are all the complaints from those who have previously been members of Mr Kennard's syndicates? Why are none of these suppossedly disaffected persons using this thread to express their dissatisfaction?

 

Again, you throw in the "numbers" as a red herring. If they do get to a thousand, then any raceday that these horses race is going to be a good day to be oncourse. The reality is that it is most unlikely that this target will be achieved but setting the number so high will ensure that all those who want to participate, will be able to do so. To me, that's a good thing.

 

Let's see what eventuates and observe with an open mind.

 

As has already been stated, nobody is being forced to participate.

 

Cheers.

Ashoka

[JackSprat 947]

Two quick points Ashoka.

 

1. Who mentioned complaints about any previous Kennard syndications? Nobody as far as I know. That's a different issue altogether, and absolutely nothing t do with this thread.

 

2. The "red herring" as you describe it, of the numbers involved here is the crux of the whole problem. To deny that is naive in the extreme. It's those very numbers that are building a quarter of a million dollars profit into this venture for the promoters.

 

Like I've said from the very beginning, this mega-syndicate idea has great potential, but this one is so bad structured, that it's only ever going to benefit one party, and it isn't going to be the new blood coming into the sport.

[Ashoka 1,179]

JackSprat...

 

1. I mentioned possible complaints as it is relevant to the matter at hand. The fact that this aspect does not suit your argument does not disqualify it from consideration. My knowledge of the conduct of the two principals and the information that I have seen first-hand leads me to believe that those who join this new venture will be very well looked after indeed. The fact that their previous clients are not complaining clearly militates in the same direction.

 

2. I have, three times now, pointed out in this thread that the number is arbitrary. The costs involved with the horses will remain the same whether or not there are five subscribers or five hundered. I have pointed out why setting such a high number is efficacious.

 

You say that this Syndicate is "badly structured". Please explain this structure to me. As structure includes the benefits to be enjoyed by the participants, you simply can't know what is involved and yet you feel you can comment. Again, i believe that those who participate will be very well looked after and enjoy an experience that they could not otherwise get. Again, my opinion is based on what I know of the two gentlement involved.

 

You opinion appears to be based on ignorance and bigotry. I have to say that I can fully understand why you and Toblerone hold the views that you do as, unfortunately, the harness industry, and the racing industry in general, is inhabited by far too many liars, cheats and charlatans. However, Mr Kennard and Mr Robinson are not of that ilk. If I did not have personal experience in dealing with these two...my opinion might well be more inclined towards your views.

 

All the best.

Ashoka

[JackSprat 947]

Clearly we are going to go round and round in circles here. The problem that myself and other contributors have with this syndication has nothing to do with the good character or otherwise of the promoters, nothing to do with their previous syndications, nor anything to do with the "experience" that participants are likely receive if the join this one.

 

These are all side issues that advocates of this syndication keep harking back to, presumably to divert attention away from the way the financial side stacks up.

 

You continue to sweep the "arbitrary" number of 1000 members under the carpet as if it is of no importance. On the contrary, it is the very thing that changes this syndication from one designed to maximise member benefits, to one that is designed to maximise the promoters upside.

 

Why the need to have an "arbitrary" maximum number of members at all. Surely they can work out the numbers and have a "fixed" maximum membership and lay their cards on the table like all other syndicates do? They've brought all this controversy upon themselves with a poorly structured offer that leaves people wondering where all the money is going.

 

Forgetting all the side issues mentioned above, just tell us whey the need to have such an "arbitrarily" structured syndicate that leaves itself open to questions of profitability and greed on the part of the promoters.

[Ashoka 1,179]

JackSprat...

 

If there is one thing that my involvement in the racing industry has taught me, it is that the calibre of the individuals I deal with that determines the nature of the experience I have. When looking at racing propositions, it must be integrity first, integrity second, integrity third. I have a legion of experience of dealing with those who were not worthy of my trust.

 

That is why it disappoints and upsets me when I see people who I know to be trustworthy being denigrated by people who have no relevant knowledge of the facts. I want to see support going to those who will do the right thing by their clients and, in doing so, bring credit to our sport and industry. I want to see as many people at the track as we can possibly get. Without the on-course aspect, our sport and industry might just as well revert to computer-generated racing. It is the on-course experience that really encourages people to become involved with nuts and bolts. That's what happened to me and many others I know.

 

It is the integrity of the principals running the venture in question that will determine the value, or not, of the experience purchased by those who subscribe. The greater the number who join, the greater the opportunities available to the promoters to enhance the benefits.

 

Your refusal to acknowledge that the reputation of the principals is relevant to this discussion identifies you as being interested only in a particular outcome, not in the discusion.

 

You say that the costs involved can be quantified. My personal experience tell me that this is not the case. If you have raced horses and really believe what you have written, then you are the luckiest person posting on this Forum.

 

Cheers.

Ashoka

[mike28 182]

scams like this only exist because there are people even in this day in age stupid enough to get involved

in them im sure they will get enough muppets to fill the shares.

[YouNeverGiveMeYourMoney 28]

I would start by saying that I doubt any party including the syndicators is going into this to make any real money, as already stated - on one hand it is a social club or an interest  while on the other hand it is a way to introduce people to ownership. I have noticed that there seem to be at least a couple of big flaws in this debate.

 

Some posters are getting hung up on the 1000 shares - wouldn't it be far more likely that 500 tops would be sold and therefore any profit you are calculating for the syndicators should be halved as they are only likely to be syndicating half of both horses.  They are still likely to be doing just as much work whether there are 140 or 800 (please don't tell me that they would be keeping more of the prize money - we all know the risk is greater than the chance of receiving any reward) 

 

If I was to be optimistic however, the other flaw I see in most's argument, would be the cost of the horses - the horses may or may not be worth something at the end of the 2yrs 'lease' so how much to put as an expense for the syndicators is another unkown.

 

We cannot expect syndicators even if they are trainers (thereby directly profiting out of the syndicate) to do all the management work for nothing.  Maybe in an ideal world the outlay would be itemized eg 50% livestock, 15% training, 25% management, ...... For all I know (and can be bothered to find out) this may have been calculated and you may include Christmas parties, showbags and heaps more as part of the fun 

 

You could also draw parallels between ownership/syndicates and beer - If you only want to buy a single can, the unit cost is twice as much as if you buy the whole slab 

[JackSprat 947]

I've been around the trots for long enough to have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly aspects of the sport. There's an old adage that says "perception is 90% of reality", and I'm pretty sure most people will perceive this to be a bad deal.

 

I keep hearing the same justification for the terrible financial structure of this syndicate - that the integrity of the promoters will ensure an amazing "experience". However I would have thought that "integrity" would have included providing a fair deal for all.

 

Irrespective of whether they sell 100, 200, 500, or all 1000 shares, the scales are tilted so far in favour of the promoters, that the members are on a hiding to nothing long before they start. Say they sell 300 shares, the promoters receive $150k, so they've recouped their initial outlay, and still pocket 70% of the stakemoney and sales. Assuming they've bought something better than Franco Harrison this time, 300 sales should make them very happy, and each sale after that would be icing on the cake!

 

This might not be the worst deal I've ever seen, but it sure is down at that end of the scale.

 

And on that note, I think I'm about over the whole thing. Let's just wait and see whether the public perceive the deal to be a "must have" deal, or a "must avoid" deal. The numbers sold over the next couple of months will be interesting to say the least.

[Prodigious 111]

I'd say the bulk of the expendature is on advertising. It ain't cheap and TV ads will quickly suck up any budget.

For this to work it needed to get out to as many people as possible - far more than you'd reach through HRW for example.

I'm even more convinced that no one is getting rich from this.

[IWMC 69]

Enough is enough. Give the Syndicator a fair go.????

 

As one with first hand and inside experience I can assure you that Noel Kennard is not ripping anyone off.

 

Quite the contrary. His initiatives to involve people in a horse as an owner at a low cost entry is to be commended.

 

Those that these syndicates appeal to have never owned a horse, never enjoyed owners facilities at a racecourse, generally are 65 plus where making new friends and social contact becomes difficult and owning a hair of the tail provides a brand new and exciting social experience to life.

 

His clients are savy enough to read the fully disclosed, detailed prospectus and sign up.

 

Given that Noel has been silent in the wake of criticism generated at his Syndicates I for one would be only to happy to disclose a copy of the balance sheet at 31/03/2014  relative to his No 2 syndicate (trotters syndicate) to any knocker who contacts me. Such is the confidence I have in the man. My point is give us a break and look at the wider picture as referred to above.

 

Those mis guided narrow minded, blinkered, home bake accountants whose sums are not correct should have a wider appreciation of why syndication has its appeal to a wider audience.

 

I for one have younger personal friends and racing mates who  I would not offer shares to in these syndicates especially in the 4 trotters syndicate of which I have a vested interest because a tiny share has no appeal to them. They have had the experience of owning a greater share in other horses and owning a hair of the tail has no appeal.

 

Thats not Noels market. The 65 plus is and if you are in doubt look up the Go Harness web site and read the comments from satisfied members having the time of their life and having a new social experience they welcome.You probably need to be 65 plus to think and appreciate  these facts.              

 

Yes, Noel is entitled to a Management fee and from what I have seen with the Trotters ( No 2) Syndicate I cannot  sit back and read what certain narrow minded blinkered racecafe members have to say.

 

Good evening.

[IWMC 69]

scams like this only exist because there are people even in this day in age stupid enough to get involved

in them im sure they will get enough muppets to fill the shares.

Mate a SCAM is a strong word.

 

For your benefit the shareholders in these Syndicates as evidenced by the birdcage photographs

appear to my eyesight appear to be senior well healed intelligent oldies .

 

They clearly have flutter money to enjoy a new experience in life.This extends to their social activities and despite being mature I believe can still read a prospectus and make a sound call, regardless of how you see it.

 

They would appear to me to be too mature to participate in a scam as you put it.

 

The Racing Industry needs the Noel Kennards of this world and perhaps less of you.?

[Toblerone 242]

Enough is enough. Give the Syndicator a fair go.????

 

As one with first hand and inside experience I can assure you that Noel Kennard is not ripping anyone off.

 

Quite the contrary. His initiatives to involve people in a horse as an owner at a low cost entry is to be commended.

 

Those that these syndicates appeal to have never owned a horse, never enjoyed owners facilities at a racecourse, generally are 65 plus where making new friends and social contact becomes difficult and owning a hair of the tail provides a brand new and exciting social experience to life.

 

His clients are savy enough to read the fully disclosed, detailed prospectus and sign up.

 

Given that Noel has been silent in the wake of criticism generated at his Syndicates I for one would be only to happy to disclose a copy of the balance sheet at 31/03/2014  relative to his No 2 syndicate (trotters syndicate) to any knocker who contacts me. Such is the confidence I have in the man. My point is give us a break and look at the wider picture as referred to above.

 

Those mis guided narrow minded, blinkered, home bake accountants whose sums are not correct should have a wider appreciation of why syndication has its appeal to a wider audience.

 

I for one have younger personal friends and racing mates who  I would not offer shares to in these syndicates especially in the 4 trotters syndicate of which I have a vested interest because a tiny share has no appeal to them. They have had the experience of owning a greater share in other horses and owning a hair of the tail has no appeal.

 

Thats not Noels market. The 65 plus is and if you are in doubt look up the Go Harness web site and read the comments from satisfied members having the time of their life and having a new social experience they welcome.You probably need to be 65 plus to think and appreciate  these facts.              

 

Yes, Noel is entitled to a Management fee and from what I have seen with the Trotters ( No 2) Syndicate I cannot  sit back and read what certain narrow minded blinkered racecafe members have to say.

 

Good evening.

 

Ian,

 

I think, first and foremost, you should declare your vested interest is that you own the three now two-year-old fillies that are leased by this syndicate. 

 

Can I ask you - did you command any fees to lease these horses, do you hold any of the 125 shares in the syndicate and if so, did you pay the required $1000 for them? What are the percentage terms on these leases? Unfortunately the Disclosure statement refers to these as 'any other deductions'.

 

One issue, when reading the disclosure statement for this syndicate, that is concerning, is that two agents, one of which has proven business ties to the syndicator organiser/manager, the other of which, while no doubt professional and of the highest integrity, does NOT sell going racehorses with any regularity, if at all, valued a horse that has just had an operation to remove bone chips at $60,000-$70,000. 

 

Imagine my surprise when I noted the horse had just four starts this season, across four months, before having a further operation recently to remove more bone-chips.

 

What do you make of this? Was this a good example of the "stringent selection policy" the website harps on about?

 

I have reviewed the fund allocations of this syndicate. I do consider them high, but not excessively high. I note that $20,000 p/a is being charged as management remuneration. I make no judgement as to whether this is too high or note. But it certainly does not strike me as a charge someone who is doing it for the love and good of racing would do. Unless of course there is a second person that is being paid to do the work, which would be a different, and more understandable situation, all together.

 

Thankfully for the syndicate, the horse won a tick over $10,000 before deductions, in those four starts so the cost of the operation will have come at no further outlay to them or the manager.

 

On to your comments re: the Double the fun syndicate.

 

You allege I (well I assume it is aimed at me as I am the only one providing figure estimates) am a "home bake accountant whose sums are not correct". I defy you to prove any of my declared expenditures wrong. Hopefully you can help us out and 'erode' some of the $279,000 I can't account for. I'm sure you can given your "first hand and inside experience".

 

You also call me and others "narrow-minded & blinkered". I think this discussion has been played out, for the most part, using fair and reasonable facts and observations. I whole-heartedly dispute that.

 

This is not a personal witch-hunt against Mr Kennard. In fact, I have never met him and anyone I have talked to has said he is the salt of the earth, a lovely chap, genuine, passionate, etc etc.

 

HOWEVER, the fact remains, and I will repeat it again, there is a massive discrepency with the costs involved in the Double The Fun Syndicate. Of that there is no escaping.

 

It is a moot point who is involved in any syndicate, or what age they are. And there are no 'owner priviliges' that you speak of except perhaps a free beer before the race and after if you win. But good luck getting 1000 drinks out of the Met in half an hour. there is the notable exception of entry to the stand on Cup Day if either of the horses are racing. there isn;t much room there though and I'd love to see the members and old boys club give up 1000+ free tickets/seats

 

As for the "satisfied members having the time of their life", I see six testimonials. One of which from a Racecafe regular who I am fairly certain owned Xcellent and Changeover.

 

I note also that Franco Harrison's disclosure statement is no longer available on the website.

 

For the record that horse has won $11,000 in 16 months in NZ's second-best stable.

He was valued at by the syndicate manager's mate, and purchased for, $60,000. Total Syndicate value - $180,000.

Not my cuppa joe. By if some oldies want to kiss goodbye to $500 to buy some friends, then so be it. 

[Toblerone 242]

My apologies, I realise now your name is Ivan, not Ian.

[Ashoka 1,179]

Toblerone...

 

You continue to use the 1,000 figure in your calculations despite this being a theoretical figure and this being pointed out repeatedly in this thread with explanations that you continue to ignore. Halve the figure...do you still want to continue this discussion in the manner in which you are currently doing so?

 

Do you know the then stud fee for Muscles Yankee when the "bone chip" horse was bred? In fact, do you know anything about this sire? Given this horses performances, please tell us what you would value this horse at...I can always use a laugh. I am sure that you do know the answers to the questions I have asked but since the right answers do not suit your argument, I'm looking forward to seeing how you smudge the facts.

 

You acknowledge that what has been said about Mr Kennard in this thread is accurate...then go on to infer that he is a rip-off artist. Please do not quibble here...that is what you have been implying in this thread all along and you are still doing so. How many people in the racing game do you know that are involved in the manner that Mr Kennard is...high-risk to reputation areas such as stallion and syndicate management...that have the reputation that Mr Kennard has? Go on...name them.

 

You know nothing of what syndicate members can expect but decry their experience anyway. Mr Kennard has a reputation as an outstanding individual in a business that is known for charlatans. No members of previous syndicates that Mr Kennard has organised and run have made complaints. Join the dots...a rational person sees a horse, but you and your ilk see a pig. How would you like to be judged by your own standards...ignorance and innuendo?

 

I've known Ivan McNIcholl for going on thirty years. That's most of my life. I have had the pleasure of working with him in relation to harness racing matters and cannot speak highly enough of his tireless, and mostly anonymous, efforts to benefit the industry at his own cost...financial, time and effort.

 

The fact that Mr McNicholl and Mr Kennard have a business relationship indicates that both men are excellent judges of character and ability.

 

All the best.

Ashoka

[Toblerone 242]

Ashoka, stop calling it a hypothetical number! $500,000 is the declared value of the syndicate regardless of how many shares are sold. This fact can not be escaped. It just means if a few less shares are sold, they will be going to Kennard for free. If I halve the figure, Mr Kennard now owns 50% of each horse without any outlay, with all costs covered including generous training rates and insurance accounted for. On top of this he gets a bonus $25,000 for this troubles. THE SUBSCRIBERS ARE STILL GETTING SHAFTED ON EXACTLY THE SAME SCALE!!! Did you do Maths in school?? 

 

 

 

 

"Do you know the then stud fee for Muscles Yankee when the "bone chip" horse was bred? In fact, do you know anything about this sire? Given this horses performances, please tell us what you would value this horse at...I can always use a laugh. I am sure that you do know the answers to the questions I have asked but since the right answers do not suit your argument, I'm looking forward to seeing how you smudge the facts."

 

I can't believe I just read this. This horse was purchased for $63,000 at the end of it's two-year-old season, not long after having serious surgery to remove bone-chips in his hocks. What the fudge does Muscles Yankee's service fee have to do with anything?

 

Any person in the industry will tell you a horse that has just had serious surgery is not a sellable proposition. That the Syndicate manager opted to purchase this horse, and at such a serious price, given the large risk factors, shows a great level of recklessness.

I feel sorry for the syndicate members that the horse, effected by ongoing soundness issues after they purchased it, had four starts in four months before further surgery was required. If you continue you to defend this, much less using Muscles Yankee as the determining factor, you are sillier than I though. The true value of the horse? $15,000-$20,000 IF someone was prepared to take a large risk. Pretty sure this syndicate didn't sign up for LARGE risk though did they?

 

How do you know they haven't made complaints? Where would they complain? To the media? to Racecafe? No, to each other or to the Syndicate manager. And that would never get made public. 

 

Please don't reply if you are going to bring up the same pathetic lines which are nothing more than a 'default' setting. You and your mate can't justify any of the financial questions listed here.

 

Good day

[Idolmite 2,559]

Ashoka, stop calling it a hypothetical number! $500,000 is the declared value of the syndicate regardless of how many shares are sold. This fact can not be escaped. It just means if a few less shares are sold, they will be going to Kennard for free. If I halve the figure, Mr Kennard now owns 50% of each horse without any outlay, with all costs covered including generous training rates and insurance accounted for. On top of this he gets a bonus $25,000 for this troubles. THE SUBSCRIBERS ARE STILL GETTING SHAFTED ON EXACTLY THE SAME SCALE!!! Did you do Maths in school?? 

 

Extremely well answered...........as was your response to the fact the stud fee at the time (breeding time) is TOTALLY irrelevant. The purchase price of the horse "at the time" (sale time) is the only thing that IS relevant to that part of the argument.  

 

Some of the flack being thrown at the syndicators is pretty harsh ("rort" is rather a strong word), but I think Ashoka's defence argument is doing more harm that good. I'd hate to have him as my defence lawyer, as he seems to be working for the prosecution.

[lonestar 80]

Ashoka, stop calling it a hypothetical number! $500,000 is the declared value of the syndicate regardless of how many shares are sold. This fact can not be escaped. It just means if a few less shares are sold, they will be going to Kennard for free. If I halve the figure, Mr Kennard now owns 50% of each horse without any outlay, with all costs covered including generous training rates and insurance accounted for. On top of this he gets a bonus $25,000 for this troubles. THE SUBSCRIBERS ARE STILL GETTING SHAFTED ON EXACTLY THE SAME SCALE!!! Did you do Maths in school?? 

 Pretty good argument. However its only a rort if you go into the syndicate blind and ignorant. Most people going into these syndicates arent in it for any financial return and really only want to be involved for the fun of being in the industry and appearing to be part of it. If the organiser can turn a profit for himself whats the harm, hes not ripping anybody off. Nobody is twisting anybodies arm!

[IWMC 69]

Ian,

 

I think, first and foremost, you should declare your vested interest is that you own the three now two-year-old fillies that are leased by this syndicate. 

 

Can I ask you - did you command any fees to lease these horses, do you hold any of the 125 shares in the syndicate and if so, did you pay the required $1000 for them? What are the percentage terms on these leases? Unfortunately the Disclosure statement refers to these as 'any other deductions'.

 

One issue, when reading the disclosure statement for this syndicate, that is concerning, is that two agents, one of which has proven business ties to the syndicator organiser/manager, the other of which, while no doubt professional and of the highest integrity, does NOT sell going racehorses with any regularity, if at all, valued a horse that has just had an operation to remove bone chips at $60,000-$70,000. 

 

Imagine my surprise when I noted the horse had just four starts this season, across four months, before having a further operation recently to remove more bone-chips.

 

What do you make of this? Was this a good example of the "stringent selection policy" the website harps on about?

 

I have reviewed the fund allocations of this syndicate. I do consider them high, but not excessively high. I note that $20,000 p/a is being charged as management remuneration. I make no judgement as to whether this is too high or note. But it certainly does not strike me as a charge someone who is doing it for the love and good of racing would do. Unless of course there is a second person that is being paid to do the work, which would be a different, and more understandable situation, all together.

 

Thankfully for the syndicate, the horse won a tick over $10,000 before deductions, in those four starts so the cost of the operation will have come at no further outlay to them or the manager.

 

On to your comments re: the Double the fun syndicate.

 

You allege I (well I assume it is aimed at me as I am the only one providing figure estimates) am a "home bake accountant whose sums are not correct". I defy you to prove any of my declared expenditures wrong. Hopefully you can help us out and 'erode' some of the $279,000 I can't account for. I'm sure you can given your "first hand and inside experience".

 

You also call me and others "narrow-minded & blinkered". I think this discussion has been played out, for the most part, using fair and reasonable facts and observations. I whole-heartedly dispute that.

 

This is not a personal witch-hunt against Mr Kennard. In fact, I have never met him and anyone I have talked to has said he is the salt of the earth, a lovely chap, genuine, passionate, etc etc.

 

HOWEVER, the fact remains, and I will repeat it again, there is a massive discrepency with the costs involved in the Double The Fun Syndicate. Of that there is no escaping.

 

It is a moot point who is involved in any syndicate, or what age they are. And there are no 'owner priviliges' that you speak of except perhaps a free beer before the race and after if you win. But good luck getting 1000 drinks out of the Met in half an hour. there is the notable exception of entry to the stand on Cup Day if either of the horses are racing. there isn;t much room there though and I'd love to see the members and old boys club give up 1000+ free tickets/seats

 

As for the "satisfied members having the time of their life", I see six testimonials. One of which from a Racecafe regular who I am fairly certain owned Xcellent and Changeover.

 

I note also that Franco Harrison's disclosure statement is no longer available on the website.

 

For the record that horse has won $11,000 in 16 months in NZ's second-best stable.

He was valued at by the syndicate manager's mate, and purchased for, $60,000. Total Syndicate value - $180,000.

Not my cuppa joe. By if some oldies want to kiss goodbye to $500 to buy some friends, then so be it. 

My vested intérest as the breeder of the 3 trotters is a matter of public record as you rightly state.

 

I have a lease agreement with Go Harness for their racing life on normal industry leassing terms.

 

If you have had experience in this regard then you would understand the conditions and type of percentages involved.

 

Yes my familly and I paid the same entry fee as the fellow shareholders.

 

The bone chips were not detected when the horse was purchased and it was after his failure in the Derby and "extensive" vet tests that they became apparent. The fact he could win races and come a game second in the Hambetonian on "three legs" speaks volumes for the horses ability.

 

What will he do on four legs later in the season.?

 

Having sold trotters I believe $60,000 for a horse with his pedigree and two year old form was a fair and competive buy. Being by Muscles Yankee the breeder paid a premium stud fee which is reflected and recovered in the sale price. (Ashoks point)

 

I dont see where you get the Syndicate value of $180,000 from.?

 

Our outgoings are a flat monthly fee and are not increased to cover the vet and surgery fees. In addition our payments are building up a travel fund for later on.

 

My comments are confined to the No 2 Trotters Syndicate whereas yours appear to cover this and subsequent syndicates of which i have no knowledge and I cannot comment on the Double the Fun Syndicate or its costings.

 

Our shareholders have access to three royally bred fillies which had I sold at auction could have topped $100k.

 

All for a $1000 outlay and $50 a month each.Throw in Saratoga and the package looks good, despite the bone chips hiccup.

 

Your comments about Mr Kennard and his integrity are appreciated and the Franco testimonials being removed is unfortunate.

 

Finally I believe I have answered your questions and we can agree to disagree.

 

Let the horses do the talking for us.

[Ashoka 1,179]

Toblerone...

 

I note that your testosterone-driven ignorance is now reacing new heights.

 

Ashoka, stop calling it a hypothetical number! $500,000 is the declared value of the syndicate regardless of how many shares are sold. This fact can not be escaped. It just means if a few less shares are sold, they will be going to Kennard for free. If I halve the figure, Mr Kennard now owns 50% of each horse without any outlay, with all costs covered including generous training rates and insurance accounted for. On top of this he gets a bonus $25,000 for this troubles. THE SUBSCRIBERS ARE STILL GETTING SHAFTED ON EXACTLY THE SAME SCALE!!! Did you do Maths in school?? 

 

The unsold shares will be owned by the principals as if they have paid for them. When the final dividend is calculated at the end of the life of the syndicate, it will take into account not just what has gone into the syndicate but also what is due to the syndicate. As thinking about this matter has clearly interrupted the flow of blood to your brain, I will explain further by way of a hypothetical example.

Syndicate Subscribers 200 x $500 = $100,000           Syndicate Principal 800 x $500 = $400,000

Amount to be returned = $300,000 (Syndicate loss = $200,000).

Syndicate Subcribers payout = $300 x 200 = $$60,000                         

Syndicate Principal payout = $300 x 800 = $240,000 - $400,000 owed, loss of $140,000

 

Salient fact...no shares are unpaid for. There is no "free ride" as you are claiming.

How the finances are actuated on a day-to-day basis...money into Syndicate account beforehand, money into the account as required with book-entry recording...makes no diffence to the return to the Syndicate Subscribers.

 

Your comments on this matter, and those of your fellow travellers, are not just mistaken...they are malicious, filthy outright lies and the exagerated manner in which you have expressed yourself displays an odious, gutless individual in need of dragging others down in order to cover his own inadequacies.

 

I did do maths at school...we all did...and, in my case, I can still use most of what I was taught in an appropriate and efficacious manner. The same cannot be said of you.

 

This horse was purchased for $63,000 at the end of it's two-year-old season, not long after having serious surgery to remove bone-chips in his hocks. What the fudge does Muscles Yankee's service fee have to do with anything?

 

You say that the fact that the horse is question is by Muscles Yankee is not relevant when assessing his potential and, hence, his worth. You are saying, therefore, that breeding is not relevant in this exercise. You are an idiot...I say this not as an opinion, but as an incontrovertible fact.

 

Any person in the industry will tell you a horse that has just had serious surgery is not a sellable proposition. 

 

No, they wouldn't tell me any such thing unless they were as ignorant and stupid as you clearly are. Surgery is a risk factor in the equation that is mitigated by utilising the professional services of a qualified veterinary practioner. You are now maligning the professional competence of all veterinarians, especially the official Syndicate veterinarian. Whether any particular diagnosis proves accurate or not is in the lap of the Gods and this applies to all variables, not just surgery.

 

The true value of the horse? $15,000-$20,000.

 

Your valuation would not cover the costs associated with the breeding of this horse. Once again, your manifest ignorance in relation to the matters at hand is exposed.

 

How do you know they haven't made complaints? Where would they complain? To the media? to Racecafe? No, to each other or to the Syndicate manager. And that would never get made public. 

 

Racing internet forums are filled with complaints. Further, during my time of involvement in the racing industry, I have heard manifest complaints about industry matters, most of which have turned out to be incorrect. If there is something that is actually wrong, word not only gets out, it explodes all around the known universe. I have heard many, many complaints about the way some syndicates have been run. The fact that you mention RaceCafe in the context of your argument beggars belief.

 

Please don't reply if you are going to bring up the same pathetic lines which are nothing more than a 'default' setting.

 

I don't have a default setting. I treat each instance in the manner I deem appropriate. Have I commented on any other of the many syndicates that have or are operating? No. The reason I am commenting on this one is because I believe that the efforts of the person behind this one are worthy of support and I have provided the reasons as to why I hold such a belief. It is no surprise that you automatically infer a "default" setting as you clearly have one, an exceedingly negative one.

 

You and your mate can't justify any of the financial questions listed here.

 

I have justified the costings and explained that your take on the situation is not just ignorant, but also malicious. However, I also now believe that you are such an ingnorant oaf, that my attempts to provide you with facts will prove the equivalent of casting pearls before swine.

 

Cheers.

Ashoka

 

 

 

 

[Ashoka 1,179]

Idolmite...

 

Once, I regarded you as a significant poster to this Forum.

That has not been the case of late.

I do wonder if your current location is a factor in an apparent lessening in your powers of comprehension.

 

However, the problem may go deeper.

Idolmite was a mare.

My guess is that you are, suppossedly, a man.

Gender identity confliction can have serious repercussions...just ask Bradley Manning.

 

All the best.

Ashoka

[MAJESTIC 182]

Very hot topic. One thing I have not as yet read is who are the horses concerned, Breeding of them, Are they qualified, What are they staked for, anything I have missed?. Where they purchased on a whim or looked over and trialled by professionals?

Selling 1,000 shares is going to take a mamooth effort. Does the syndicate close on sale of 1,000 shares or is there a date set down as the cutoff?. Can anyone answer my queries or can Mr Kennard / Robinson enlighten us. Is this the same Mr John Robinson who used to work for HRNZ?.

[Ashoka 1,179]

Majestic...

 

With respect, if you are genuinely interested, why haven't you looked at the plethora of information available on the website set up for just your kind of enquiries?

 

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt at the moment and believing the you have just come across all this and have posted without really thinking.

 

My advice...do your own work and stop being a lazy so-and-so, and, after your own investigations, by all means come back here and say what you think and ask any unanswered questions.

 

Given this thread, anybody would think that Mr Kennard and Mr Robinson are impossible to get ahold of. Are they? Have any of the reprobates posting in ignorance tried to make contact? Rhetorical question, of course...we all know the answer.

 

Cheers.

Ashoka

[JackSprat 947]

Toblerone...

 

I note that your testosterone-driven ignorance is now reacing new heights.

 

Ashoka, stop calling it a hypothetical number! $500,000 is the declared value of the syndicate regardless of how many shares are sold. This fact can not be escaped. It just means if a few less shares are sold, they will be going to Kennard for free. If I halve the figure, Mr Kennard now owns 50% of each horse without any outlay, with all costs covered including generous training rates and insurance accounted for. On top of this he gets a bonus $25,000 for this troubles. THE SUBSCRIBERS ARE STILL GETTING SHAFTED ON EXACTLY THE SAME SCALE!!! Did you do Maths in school?? 

 

The unsold shares will be owned by the principals as if they have paid for them. When the final dividend is calculated at the end of the life of the syndicate, it will take into account not just what has gone into the syndicate but also what is due to the syndicate. As thinking about this matter has clearly interrupted the flow of blood to your brain, I will explain further by way of a hypothetical example.

Syndicate Subscribers 200 x $500 = $100,000           Syndicate Principal 800 x $500 = $400,000

Amount to be returned = $300,000 (Syndicate loss = $200,000).

Syndicate Subcribers payout = $300 x 200 = $$60,000                         

Syndicate Principal payout = $300 x 800 = $240,000 - $400,000 owed, loss of $140,000

 

Salient fact...no shares are unpaid for. There is no "free ride" as you are claiming.

How the finances are actuated on a day-to-day basis...money into Syndicate account beforehand, money into the account as required with book-entry recording...makes no diffence to the return to the Syndicate Subscribers.

 

Your comments on this matter, and those of your fellow travellers, are not just mistaken...they are malicious, filthy outright lies and the exagerated manner in which you have expressed yourself displays an odious, gutless individual in need of dragging others down in order to cover his own inadequacies.

 

I did do maths at school...we all did...and, in my case, I can still use most of what I was taught in an appropriate and efficacious manner. The same cannot be said of you.

 

This horse was purchased for $63,000 at the end of it's two-year-old season, not long after having serious surgery to remove bone-chips in his hocks. What the fudge does Muscles Yankee's service fee have to do with anything?

 

You say that the fact that the horse is question is by Muscles Yankee is not relevant when assessing his potential and, hence, his worth. You are saying, therefore, that breeding is not relevant in this exercise. You are an idiot...I say this not as an opinion, but as an incontrovertible fact.

 

Any person in the industry will tell you a horse that has just had serious surgery is not a sellable proposition. 

 

No, they wouldn't tell me any such thing unless they were as ignorant and stupid as you clearly are. Surgery is a risk factor in the equation that is mitigated by utilising the professional services of a qualified veterinary practioner. You are now maligning the professional competence of all veterinarians, especially the official Syndicate veterinarian. Whether any particular diagnosis proves accurate or not is in the lap of the Gods and this applies to all variables, not just surgery.

 

The true value of the horse? $15,000-$20,000.

 

Your valuation would not cover the costs associated with the breeding of this horse. Once again, your manifest ignorance in relation to the matters at hand is exposed.

 

How do you know they haven't made complaints? Where would they complain? To the media? to Racecafe? No, to each other or to the Syndicate manager. And that would never get made public. 

 

Racing internet forums are filled with complaints. Further, during my time of involvement in the racing industry, I have heard manifest complaints about industry matters, most of which have turned out to be incorrect. If there is something that is actually wrong, word not only gets out, it explodes all around the known universe. I have heard many, many complaints about the way some syndicates have been run. The fact that you mention RaceCafe in the context of your argument beggars belief.

 

Please don't reply if you are going to bring up the same pathetic lines which are nothing more than a 'default' setting.

 

I don't have a default setting. I treat each instance in the manner I deem appropriate. Have I commented on any other of the many syndicates that have or are operating? No. The reason I am commenting on this one is because I believe that the efforts of the person behind this one are worthy of support and I have provided the reasons as to why I hold such a belief. It is no surprise that you automatically infer a "default" setting as you clearly have one, an exceedingly negative one.

 

You and your mate can't justify any of the financial questions listed here.

 

I have justified the costings and explained that your take on the situation is not just ignorant, but also malicious. However, I also now believe that you are such an ingnorant oaf, that my attempts to provide you with facts will prove the equivalent of casting pearls before swine.

 

Cheers.

Ashoka

 

That's got to be the greatest load of hogwash that I've read since Kennett and Willaimson were in their heydays!

 

Repeating the same flawed lines over and over again doesn't change the facts, and neither does "playing the man instead of the ball", or "doubling your output". You can defend it until you turn blue in the face, but this syndication is as flawed as your maths!