The Stable.ca

[brownmoose13]

Read rule #2 change to be voted on and finally Amac will be screwed as he will not have the say in all the horses as he will not be the corresponding officer unless he puts his money where his mouth his. Hard to get around as all members must have their % listed with the USTA.
Finally some common sense in the rule.

[White Rabbit]

If the BS Trotting Ass want to do something that protects the integrity of the sport try this. When you transfer a horse how about requiring a copy of the check & , put the transfer on hold till after you get a copy the check cleared the bank. If no copy of cleared check is submitted after a week, stop the transfer. This way at least when someone gets a positive and they decide to transfer all their horse to someone else at least it makes it somewhat inconvenient. But wait USTA FOS won’t do that because then they won’t get all the transfer fees if they put a stop to just random transfer of ownership. They’re not going to do anything to hurt their financial bottom line. Also I love the way they call them rules. Not what the said in court 30 yrs ago when Craig Stein sued them, they we’re guidelines then.

[brownmoose13]

not a bad idea but not the right people care

[wisha roder]

Read rule #2 change to be voted on and finally Amac will be screwed as he will not have the say in all the horses as he will not be the corresponding officer unless he puts his money where his mouth his. Hard to get around as all members must have their % listed with the USTA.
Finally some common sense in the rule.

What makes the difference in how many shares the individual owner's have? It's a fractional ownership group. As an owner of mutiple horses, I can buy and sell my shares amongst the other owners.  It can change the percentages day to day. Leave it alone.  It's a great way to get new owners into our industry.  Except for NY, NJ, and Canada, as long as you have less than 5% you don't need an owner's license. Meanwhile....all the other owners have to get licenses which i can guarantee you the pertaining states are collecting far more licensing fees off of fractional ownership groups per horse as opposed to standard ownership.  We all know there are and have been a lot of owners of horses racing that aren't listed as owners. What's the difference? I don't get the negativity on the Stable.ca

[brownmoose13]

What's the difference? You must not know anyone who is/was a member of the stable...they all have the same to say...all we do is fund Amacs pension fund. With the stable and other fractional ownerships the rule change will prevent 1 person who may or may not own any piece of the horse having total say. If you look at the terms at the Stable investors are not allowed to know or speak with other partners on any horse. Amac should change the name from The Stable.ca to OPM stable meaning Other Peoples Money. Hard to name an expense that Amac does not charge for including his Starbucks coffee. Have you noticed that on his YouTube videos all comments are blocked...wonder why??

[COUNSELOR]

I have read a lot of the information on the stable and have a difficult time understanding how this is not a security in the eyes of the SEC.   Units or shares that can be bought and sold or traded can be construed as a security.  Additionally, i am sure the argument would be the entire investment is at risk and the fees are not finite but unlimited----also, the difference between accredited and non-accredited could be an issue.   The ALMAHURST PROGRAMS as well as STANDARDBRED TROTTERS AND PACERS, INC. AND LPG STANDARDBRED were all considered securities and each had to be accredited investors.

not sure the structure of this company but the terms units or shares as well as trading and selling shares truly raises a red flag in my opinion.  I would assume these folks have a good securities attorney in order to be able to buy and sell as they do.  The fact that one man can in fact manage and run the stable without investors input truly again raises the flag of a security as the participants do not have management rights then they in fact are only investors which again could be considered a security    it is possible that these folks have qualified legal counsel and that they have the proper structure in order for this not to be a security.

The above comments actually seem to be heading in the direction of this organization being a security.    Interesting that they may have unlimited risk but zero management input.

i have never talked to anyone from this group or any members so my input is merely a question for the folks who are involved  or the investors.   I am not pointing any fingers but baffled on hw this is not a security.

[Open bridle]

  I think his fractional ownership partnership concept is losing momentum.  Inflation is eating into everyone's horse ownership cost, but when all his personal expenses are included also the ROI is even less. Fractional owners can have only so much fun losing their money.

[Calhoun]

The USTA exists for the sole purpose of ensuring its own survival and the grift it allows its 'leadership' to practice.

jmmvhmfo

[Generation XYZ]

The USTA exists for the sole purpose of ensuring its own survival and the grift it allows its 'leadership' to practice.

jmmvhmfo

Aint this the truth...