Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: That’s crazy | |
| Posted by: ryhog 02:15 pm EDT 06/21/22 | |
| In reply to: re: That’s crazy - jgerard 12:55 pm EDT 06/21/22 | |
|
|
|
| My point (that I must not be conveying very well) is that there of course ARE rules of recoupment, but they are not the stuff of press releases. When you speak about investors being impressed (in your subsequent post), perhaps you mean potential future investors. Press releases do of course have a (potentially) salutary effect on future investors, as well as on potential customers. It's not really hard to figure out that hyping the demand for a show sells tickets. It also buttresses (validly or not) a producer's pedigree. But for PRESENT investors in a show, there is no confusion or mystery about recoupment. The only rules of recoupment that DO exist provide those investors with precise proof: if the money is in your bank account, then the producer has returned all or part of your investment. If the money is not in your account, nothing in a press release means a thing to you (and, for that matter, nothing in a press release is actionable by you). I am not sure why you keep bringing up Garth in relation to this (he had nothing to do with Lehman). It's no secret that I share your head scratching regarding some of those who are doing business with this deadbeat fraudster, but the essence of a con man is that they somehow know how to charm otherwise smart people into being conned over and over. (As I have also pointed out though, one reason Garth has so many secondary and tertiary people working on his show is that a LOT of people said no.) [Fwiw, and I don't want to go off on the tangent, I don't agree with you about the importance of Mike Ovitz to the Livent saga.] But as I said before, nothing about Garth has the slightest thing to do with Lehman's recoupment (or not). Unless you are accusing its producers of being pathological fraudsters, which I am pretty sure you are not. Finally, bringing up Rudin is also a red herring. Rudin was not "erased" by investors or landlords; he erased himself. And for good reason: it was the only way he had a prayer of avoiding being criminally charged. Using the press through spin (often without substantial basis) to one's advantage is nothing new in this business (or most). Rudin did a lot of things I would call silly, but again, I don't think you are accusing him of defrauding people by the things you mention. Clear-eyed analysis = good. :-) |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: That’s crazy | |
| Posted by: jgerard 04:17 pm EDT 06/21/22 | |
| In reply to: re: That’s crazy - ryhog 02:15 pm EDT 06/21/22 | |
|
|
|
| Neither of my posts had anything to do with Lehman Bros in particular but with the more general subject of recoupment and how it is understood by average readers, industry professionals and the reporters covering them. And I'd argue that Rudin's investors up through and including Dolly might take issue with your conclusion about where the money went, even if fraud was not technically involved. I'm certain you know this and why, suddenly, his shows listed just three producers rather than his long-suffering minions. And you may be the only smart observer of this business to call any of Rudin's actions "silly." There may be some disagreement on that. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: That’s crazy | |
| Posted by: ryhog 05:59 pm EDT 06/21/22 | |
| In reply to: re: That’s crazy - jgerard 04:17 pm EDT 06/21/22 | |
|
|
|
| re broadening the subject, ok. I thought you were responding to Dramedy's Lehman-specific post. re "if fraud was not technically involved," that's a mighty big if. Understand, I would not shed a tear if you could reveal fraud but I think what those investors were kvetching about had to do with Rudin's choices in how to spend money, something that is certainly contemplated by the parameters of the offering. Even within that context, I think Rudin was actually nowhere near the cutting edge of (still not fraudulent) self-dealing that some others are known for. re "silly," the first thing that comes to mind is the aforementioned ridiculous ad buys that could not possibly be justified financially (and, as we now know know, he did not always pay for as required). There were others, like misjudging value, and closing shows that could have continued to run profitably. (And I'll leave to the side the nonsense like suing the Lee estate to satiate some personal power trip.) Anyway, all of this is well and good but I think most folks on this thread were trying to stay on point. Oh, and I may or may not be smart, but I am far from the only person who called him silly! Once again, I implore: clear-eyed analysis=good. :-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.010944 seconds.