Since you claim to have had horses in the past and maybe have them again and have boarded I would think you at least would understand there is far more to horse keeping than the numbers.
Let us pretend the numbers worked with Lauren’s ever growing number of horses with no increased board paid for them. Sure. Why not. (Though likely they did not, but we are pretending here.)
That does not negate that there is more to barn life than just the bottom line. Other clients are not just stopping in once a month or once a week to buy that loaf of fancy bread that you sell. They are there daily to spend time with their horse(s). It needs to be a place where they are comfortable, where they do not dread going. Where they are not afraid some strange boarder is going to physically hurt them or their horse(s).
So no matter how much we imagine that Lauren’s low monthly payment for her growing string of horses works out as not a money loss, we can not ignore the fact that Lauren’s actions are the type of things that make boarders leave in mass, which would be damaging of Michael’s bottom line.
Imagine if that clinic Lauren rode in at the end was supposed to happen again and it had to be cancelled because of Lauren’s actions making the place completely un-hospitable. That is a loss for Michael’s business.
The relevance is that if her $5,000 per month improved his monthly cash flow on the basis of marginal revenue exceeding marginal cost, there was an economic incentive to agree to the original deal, even if it was a below market rate deal.
Your position is that he had no economic incentive to agree to the initial deal and only did so because JK threatened him.
What is the documentation for that claim, @Knights_Mom?
Have you read the police report you mentioned earlier that you referenced the content of @CurrentlyHorseless ?
Edit to add the all important bolding.
You forgot to bold it. Apparently CH thinks that makes a difference.
Thank you for the tip. I will go edit. Bolding it is.
Because you can use that stall for your own horses - the ones you are training for resale.
LOL. I am not representing MBs business as a “monarchy”. What would that even mean?
It was MBs business. He was the principal. If he was the one who entered into the agreement with LK, it was his responsibility to end the relationship.
Obviously the assistant trainers would “have a say”. But their input would be to express their preferences to the principal for his decision.
Hay in Florida is at least $20 a bale, probably more. If a horse eats a bale a day $20×30days=$600 per horse. Times 6 horses is $3,600 out of that $5,000 and not a single other expense has even been addressed yet.
I know you have said you owned horses before and you are implying you own horses now but darn you are saying something that makes it seem like you do not know how the whole horse thing works.
I have never been at a training barn where if someone rides with underling trainer A, that underling trainer A had to get approval from NameOnTheDoor trainer to refuse to train that person anymore.
Where’s your documentation for this claim, @CurrentlyHorseless?
You’re demanding it from others. Please, by all means, provide documentation yourself.
Multiple legal documents (which means they will eventually have to prove the claim) and LK’s own SM about having to “enforce” contracts (lawsuits are how you enforce contracts).
Given that LK was paying way under market rates and her behavior was driving clients away…she was a huge liability to MB’s business.
And he can convey that responsibility to anyone he wants.
Where is your documentation for this claim, @CurrentlyHorseless? That the 5k for 4 horses exceeded their cost?
Since no one is paying board on those horses, your monthly cash flow still drops (perhaps becomes more negative). It might still make sense depending on how much you eventually sell those horses for, but getting rid of a client paying board for your own sale horses reduces current monthly cash flow because you lose the $5,000 a month and you still have to feed the horses replacing them.
Go to @ekats opening post that lists the legal papers submitted and you will find that claim sworn to in papers filed on MBs behalf. It’s been referenced repeatedly on COTH.
It’s their job to run the place if/when he is unavailable. Conducting a lesson on site, or a clinic off site.
But nooo, we have to circle and spiral in somehow that it’s all MHG’s fault.
Businesses are not only about daily cash flow.
And you are stuck on this idea that the business was floundering and needed cash. We do not know if that is true. It is an assumption on your part from a couple of texts and phrasing from one witness.
I would think that their would have been witnesses talking about non payment if that really was a problem. Like the hay and feed guys, insurance etc etc.
Someone tried to make it true about the heat in the house but that was proven false by LP receipts. There is simply no prove that there was a serious cash flow problem.
