PDA

View Full Version : Former owner wants 1/2


karlskorner
05-07-2002, 09:38 AM
Russell Reineman would like 1/2 of WE earnings, may sue for it.

Bob Baffert has said he intends to split with former trainer.

www.drf.com/news/article/37068.html

And so it goes

Karl

ranchwest
05-07-2002, 10:01 AM
I'm totally amazed that a man is desperate for money and would make a sale without an agreement on a potential bonus. My guess is that he is now entitled to 10%.

GR1@HTR
05-07-2002, 10:28 AM
Yeah, that is what contracts are for. If it wasn't in the contract then it was his own fault... SOL(schyt out of luck)

Lefty
05-07-2002, 01:57 PM
GR1, don't be so sure. The courts seem intently focused on rewarding idiots.

tanda
05-07-2002, 04:53 PM
My initial reaction was "what an a@#hole". That is why you have contracts, lawyers and other advisors.

However, it appears that the contract was silent on the issue and Sportsmans Park has no clear language on the issue.

If the language of the bonus is something such as "The bonus will be paid to the winning owner of any Triple Crown race if the winning horse previously won the Iliinois Derby" then it would follow the horse and go to the horse's current owner(s) at the time of the qualifying Triple Crown victory.

If it states something such as "The winning owner of the Illinois Derby will be paid the bonus if that horse later wins any Triple Crown race" then Reineman would get it all. That language would indicate that ownership is determined as of the Illinois Derby win.

My information indicates that the language is closer to the first example and favors Thoroughbred Corp.

superfecta
05-07-2002, 09:36 PM
That should have been the first issue after deciding to sell.If he didn't think of that till after the derby,its his fault.That being said,The Thoroughbred Corp. ought to give the big sore loser the whole bonus because its not worth the bad press and hassle.They will make way more down the road,and they will look classy for doing it.

karlskorner
05-07-2002, 10:50 PM
I am starting to ask myself some questions:

Why would Bob Baffert offer Frank Springer (former trainer of WE) one half of his share of the purse money, immediately after the Derby was run and why would Baffert say in the paddock before the race was run that he wagered $500.00 on WE, ......... the first Derby wager he has made since running Real Quiet. He stated at the time "if they just leave my horse alone on the lead, he will win it". This from a Trainer who had WE in his charge for only 3 weeks. The next couple of weeks may provide some answers.

Karl

smf
05-07-2002, 10:57 PM
karlskorner posted>

"Why would Bob Baffert offer Frank Springer (former trainer of WE) one half of his share of the purse money, immediately after the Derby was run......"

Karl,

Baffert was quoted in the Thoroughbred Times and/or BloodHorse that he made that comment to Springer a week or 2 beforeThe Derby. He was appreciative of Springer going out of his way to help Baffert w/ the horse's quirks, something Springer didn't have to do but was nice enuff to do so.

IMO, the former owner is in no way deseving of any % of the bonus.

superfecta
05-07-2002, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by karlskorner
I am starting to ask myself some questions:

Why would Bob Baffert offer Frank Springer (former trainer of WE) one half of his share of the purse money, immediately after the Derby was run and why would Baffert say in the paddock before the race was run that he wagered $500.00 on WE, ......... the first Derby wager he has made since running Real Quiet. He stated at the time "if they just leave my horse alone on the lead, he will win it". This from a Trainer who had WE in his charge for only 3 weeks. The next couple of weeks may provide some answers.

Karl Maybe Baffert had confidence and some class?

Observer
05-07-2002, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by superfecta
The Thoroughbred Corp. ought to give the big sore loser the whole bonus because its not worth the bad press and hassle.They will make way more down the road,and they will look classy for doing it.

I'm not taking sides on this issue because there is too much we don't know .. but .. with the Thoroughbred Corp. having paid a reported $900,000 for this colt, how crazy would they be to just fork over the $1,000,000 just to look classy?? Sure, to them, what's a cool million with all their fortunes .. but then again .. it could very well be their next Derby winner!

The fair thing needs to be done here .. neither side should just ignore what might rightfully be theirs.

tanda
05-07-2002, 11:13 PM
It appears that there is not a clear answer. Sportsmans, Thoroughbred Corp, Reineman, etc. all look like idiots for not addressing this issue. Sportsmans cannot give a straight answer, because they do not have one. What a bunch of clowns.

rrbauer
05-07-2002, 11:23 PM
I have seen comments from Baffert in the media that basically say that the split was worked out before hand. The previous owner gets 10% of whatever and there is no issue.

The fact that Baffert chooses to split the bonus 50-50 with the previous trainer is Baffert's deal. Doesn't have squat to do with the owners. Baffert has acknowledged that the previous trainer was very open and helpful in the transition of the horse to BB's barn and Baffert is responding in kind.

Where are you coming from with all of this lawsuit, etc., yada, yada, yada? Are you suffering from dark-day boredom?

Observer
05-07-2002, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by rrbauer
Where are you coming from with all of this lawsuit, etc., yada, yada, yada? Are you suffering from dark-day boredom?

Don't know who these questions are directed to, but maybe you should check out the following link for the story that is swirling.

http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=9495

superfecta
05-08-2002, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by Observer


I'm not taking sides on this issue because there is too much we don't know .. but .. with the Thoroughbred Corp. having paid a reported $900,000 for this colt, how crazy would they be to just fork over the $1,000,000 just to look classy?? Sure, to them, what's a cool million with all their fortunes .. but then again .. it could very well be their next Derby winner!

The fair thing needs to be done here .. neither side should just ignore what might rightfully be theirs. Not crazy at all,just taking the lesser of two evils in a sense.What would they gain by a lengthy court battle? Not much,legal troubles could make it harder to syndicate the horse later.Just the appearance of screwing the old owner would not help at all.Doesn't matter if they are right.Which I think they are.
The old owner doesn't have much to stand on unless he can prove they violated terms of the selling contract.

andicap
05-09-2002, 04:08 AM
Originally posted by karlskorner
I am starting to ask myself some questions:

Why would Bob Baffert offer Frank Springer (former trainer of WE) one half of his share of the purse money, immediately after the Derby was run and why would Baffert say in the paddock before the race was run that he wagered $500.00 on WE, ......... the first Derby wager he has made since running Real Quiet. He stated at the time "if they just leave my horse alone on the lead, he will win it". This from a Trainer who had WE in his charge for only 3 weeks. The next couple of weeks may provide some answers.

Karl

Karl, I thought I read in the NY Times on Sunday that Baffert had told Espinoza to take back and not use up the horse, but the horse had a mind of his own. If that's the case, why would Baffert had said WE would win if alone on the lead. He didn't want the horse on the lead!

karlskorner
05-09-2002, 08:21 AM
Andicap;

As Will Rogers use to say " I only know what I read in the papers"

I read it on ESPN and somewhere else. Todays DRF has a story that Baffert called Springer everyday for advice. Apparently not an easy animal to handle. Various reporters are coming up with stories about Baffert/Springer and the law suit. I guess thats their job.

Frankly, I don't really don't care any more, since you and I weren't privilged to be there, we will never really know.

Karl

rrbauer
05-09-2002, 01:00 PM
WAR EMBLEM's previous owner, Russell Reineman, has shown the world what an astute businessman he is. He sells a money-making horse via a contract that says effectively that all rights, titles, and future considerations from the ownership are part of the sale. He keeps 10% of the horse; and, he keeps 100% of a money-losing business. Then when the new connections position the horse to win a lot of money (and do), Mr. Reineman recognizes that his business acumen in trading horses is about the same as his business acumen in trading steel products.

Now, he furthers his cause by threatening to sue Sportsmans Park to get a bigger percentage of their Triple Crown bonus than the 10% that is rightfully his via ownership rights. As I understand it, Sportsmans only obligation is to pay the OWNERS of the horse within 30 days. Excuse the pun, but when Sportsmans delivers the check then that's a moot suit!

Mr. Reineman should take his ten-percent cut for as long as the WAR EMBLEM run lasts, and get out of the spotlight before he does more damage to his credibility. It's hindsight, but Russell should've sold the business and kept the horse!

Observer
05-09-2002, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by andicap
I thought I read in the NY Times on Sunday that Baffert had told Espinoza to take back and not use up the horse, but the horse had a mind of his own.

Don't know where I heard/read it from, but I had heard/read something of how Baffert had told Espinoza not to use the whip on War Emblem because he doesn't like it. And I do remember hearing Baffert, after the race, teasing Espinoza about how he had told the jock to wait, wait, wait .. and how he got it right this time.

Andicap, I know this is not what you're saying you thought you read .. but you can see how there are sort of some similarities, and maybe someone somewhere lost the real meaning in their coverage??

tanda
05-13-2002, 01:07 AM
Well, what do you think of ol' Russell's daughter? She said he is entitled to all of the bonus.

I am sure that her opinion is completely unbiased and based on the strict reading of the various terms.