Corporate Horse Racing

[TiffaniO]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

You really stated the above?

He was syndicated for stallion duty. He was owned in whole by Meadow Stable until he retired to stud.

Actually no... they owned the horse as of February 26, 1972. 32 shares of which Ms Chenery had 4. She may still have been making the decisions. However he still had multiple owners as of that date.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by TiffaniO

Actually no... they owned the horse as of February 26, 1972. 32 shares of which Ms Chenery had 4. She may still have been making the decisions. However he still had multiple owners as of that date.

Good Lord. You don't even know what stallion syndication is. That means his breeding rights were sold, not the racing rights. He was owned by Meadow Stables until he retired. Go look at the chart and you'll see it says "Meadow Stable" as the owner.

Not that any of this is relevant. Can I give you a box of Rice-a-Roni and send you on your way?

[TiffaniO]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

Good Lord. You don't even know what stallion syndication is. That means his breeding rights were sold, not the racing rights. He was owned by Meadow Stables until he retired. Go look at the chart and you'll see it says "Meadow Stable" as the owner.

Actually I’m sure I know a lot more than you think... and your demeaning tone can take a hike.

Lots of owners aren’t listed on the program even though they are licensed and are legal owners of a certain horse...

Easiest question is... if Secretariat dropped dead on Feb 27,1972 would Chenery receive all the money or just 1/8. The answer shows you who the owners are...

[TiffaniO]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

Good Lord. You don't even know what stallion syndication is. That means his breeding rights were sold, not the racing rights. He was owned by Meadow Stables until he retired. Go look at the chart and you'll see it says "Meadow Stable" as the owner.

Not that any of this is relevant. Can I give you a box of Rice-a-Roni and send you on your way?

I’m not going anywhere.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by TiffaniO

Actually I’m sure I know a lot more than you think... and your demeaning tone can take a hike.

MLots of owners aren’t listed on the program even though they are licensed and are legal owners of a certain horse...

Easiest question is... if Secretariat dropped dead on Feb 27,1972 would Chenery receive all the money or just 1/8. The answer shows you who the owners are...

When someone argues inane things, then yes, I tend to respond accordingly.

Easy answer. If he dropped dead on Feb 27, then the parties who would receive money would be the ones who had insurable interests and did indeed insure those interests. I've never seen the syndication contract, so I don't know if they paid for the breeding rights at the time of sale or if payment was due the date he retires and they receive the horse for his breeding rights. Without knowing this, I can't guess whether Chenery should've kept him fully insured until the date he retired or if she'd already been paid for his breeding rights and therefore had no need to insure, or when the syndicate members paid for their share and thus insure as of that date.

Chenery retained his racing rights and owned him fully until the date he retired.

[TiffaniO]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

When someone argues inane things, then yes, I tend to respond accordingly.

Easy answer. If he dropped dead on Feb 27, then the parties who would receive money would be the ones who had insurable interests and did indeed insure those interests. I've never seen the syndication contract, so I don't know if they paid for the breeding rights at the time of sale or if payment was due the date he retires and they receive the horse for his breeding rights. Without knowing this, I can't guess whether Chenery should've kept him fully insured until the date he retired or if she'd already been paid for his breeding rights and therefore had no need to insure, or when the syndicate members paid for their share and thus insure as of that date.

Chenery retained his racing rights and owned him fully until the date he retired.

Actually you’re wrong... because my Grandfather actually owned 2 shares thus how I know details. She did make racing decisions but she only owned 1/8 legally.

You can argue all you want but I kinda know.

I’d like to say something snarky about what I could send you to just go away but I doubt you have any use for them

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by TiffaniO

Actually you’re wrong... because my Grandfather actually owned 2 shares thus how I know details. She did make racing decisions but she only owned 1/8 legally.

You can argue all you want but I kinda know.

Then both you and Gramps are clueless.

Try coming up with some proof that Gramps actually owned him while he was racing. I won't hold my breath, because he didn't.

[Nitro]

I would like to suggest just the opposite supposition about corporate involvement in horse racing in general. Not only should there be corporate ownership in the breed, I would like to see corporate sponsorship of active runners.

What better long-term example could there be than just looking at every level of auto racing. I believe its one of the major reasons why its so successful and draws incredible public interest.

As has been previously stated (from the bettor’s perspective), “Who cares who owns these horses?”

[Grits]

Originally Posted by Nitro

I would like to suggest just the opposite supposition about corporate involvement in horse racing in general. Not only should there be corporate ownership in the breed, I would like to see corporate sponsorship of active runners.

What better long-term example could there be than just looking at every level of auto racing. I believe its one of the major reasons why its so successful and draws incredible public interest.

As has been previously stated (from the bettor’s perspective), “Who cares who owns these horses?”

How closely ya been following car racing????? Yep, they're on a roll!



https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...car-s-big-skid

[TiffaniO]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

Then both you and Gramps are clueless.

Try coming up with some proof that Gramps actually owned him while he was racing. I won't hold my breath, because he didn't.

He legally owned 1/16 of him on the date I listed. And for you to say that, you must just be a miserable human being. And getting your suspenders in a wad actually makes me laugh out loud.

[TiffaniO]

Originally Posted by Grits

How closely ya been following car racing????? Yep, they're on a roll!



https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...car-s-big-skid

Every sports franchise has minority owners. NFL, NBA, MLB

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by TiffaniO

He legally owned 1/16 of him on the date I listed. And for you to say that, you must just be a miserable human being. And getting your suspenders in a wad actually makes me laugh out loud.

No, dearie, he didn't. It's stupid that we're even arguing it. Find even one scrap of evidence that he did. Just one. You won't, because he didn't. He didn't get listed in the programs, and he got zero from his purse earnings, and he didn't have to be licensed as part-owner of Sec in each jurisdiction Sec raced. Find this racing partnership mentioned in any of the hundreds of articles and books on him. This is all because Gramps was NOT part owner of Sec while he was racing. Gramps (if we believe you) only owned shares in his breeding syndication.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by Nitro

I would like to suggest just the opposite supposition about corporate involvement in horse racing in general. Not only should there be corporate ownership in the breed, I would like to see corporate sponsorship of active runners.

What better long-term example could there be than just looking at every level of auto racing. I believe its one of the major reasons why its so successful and draws incredible public interest.

As has been previously stated (from the bettor’s perspective), “Who cares who owns these horses?”

Corporate sponsorship is different, and we already have corporate sponsorship in the sport.

Lots of people care who own the horses (but again, more importantly, who trains). NBC is going to have a devil of a time finding a heart-warming angle on the Derby owners for its Preakness broadcast.

[TiffaniO]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

No, dearie, he didn't. It's stupid that we're even arguing it. Find even one scrap of evidence that he did. Just one. You won't, because he didn't. He didn't get listed in the programs, and he got zero from his purse earnings, and he didn't have to be licensed as part-owner of Sec in each jurisdiction Sec raced. Find this racing partnership mentioned in any of the hundreds of articles and books on him. This is all because Gramps was NOT part owner of Sec while he was racing. Gramps (if we believe you) only owned shares in his breeding syndication.

I really don’t care if you believe me or not... but a syndication did own him legally even though Ms Chenery still made racing decisions.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by Grits

How closely ya been following car racing????? Yep, they're on a roll!



https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...car-s-big-skid

I believe I follow it a bit more than the average person and as far as I’m concerned NASCAR, Indy Car, Formula One, NHRA and others rely very heavily on corporate sponsorship. Of course, the economy always plays a significant role in determining whether or not these organizations get involved. But the proof is in the pudding, and has been for decades!

It’s funny how the graph on the link you provided coincides with our U.S. economy over that same period.