Legal Eagle Sale hits the times

Over the Air wrote:

flaunt wrote:

Farawaysaint wrote: Maybe I am naive but I was under the impression that the NHA is the Administrator of racing in SA.
That being the case should they not have stepped in at an early stage and "administrated" the running,selling and decisions regarding all these horses.

what call do they have when it is the banks that are owed money? The banks are trying to recover as much money as possible on the Mayfair accounts

Flaunt they are the regulatory body they can do plenty. For appearances they have asked Jooste for an explanation and have accepted him handing in his personal colours. So in essence they are attempting to "show" that they are concerned, and on top of things.


Don't you think as a start, they could regulate the monies earned from racing and disposing of horses? This would ensure that racing creditors at least have a shot at being paid. Simply put, what is stopping monies received from going into the wrong pockets? If the NHA refuse to do a change of ownership without receiving monies into an agreed account, that stops those moves immediately. It also provides a very clear paper trail for the liquidator, SAPS Commercial fraud unit and the banks to follow.

There seems to be some sympathy for the fraudster Jooste in certain circles. Anton Marcus pays credit to him after Legal Eagle wins. At Vascos on Sunday a stable employee from one of the Jooste favoured yards was telling all and sundry about poor Markus has been made the fall guy. This should stop. He deserves nothing but a jail cell and whatever he has done for the industry is mute.

A couple of years back I asked a director of Phumelela how much was deducted from every Tote bet that was placed by punters.
I can't recall to the exact amount but I think it was between 21-22%!!
He broke it down amongst the various cost factors and the NHA was one of them.
The conclusion was that the NHA,the Racing Admin governor, is totally funded and dependant from income provided by punters.
This hardly makes them a independent body.

Is it permissible for Mayfair to hold a "partial share" with "others stepping in" to become "owners"

Urbanite wrote: What a race horse this Legal Eagle is ! Kudos to the trainer and jockey once again.
Sadly this horse's latest achievement has been overshadowed by the shady Jooste activities.
I can admire the horse but find it difficult to cheer on the new connections under these circumstances.

I don`t think it has, record books will now carry the new owners name

Over the Air wrote:

flaunt wrote:

Farawaysaint wrote: Maybe I am naive but I was under the impression that the NHA is the Administrator of racing in SA.
That being the case should they not have stepped in at an early stage and "administrated" the running,selling and decisions regarding all these horses.

what call do they have when it is the banks that are owed money? The banks are trying to recover as much money as possible on the Mayfair accounts

Flaunt they are the regulatory body they can do plenty. For appearances they have asked Jooste for an explanation and have accepted him handing in his personal colours. So in essence they are attempting to "show" that they are concerned, and on top of things.

Don't you think as a start, they could regulate the monies earned from racing and disposing of horses? This would ensure that racing creditors at least have a shot at being paid. Simply put, what is stopping monies received from going into the wrong pockets? If the NHA refuse to do a change of ownership without receiving monies into an agreed account, that stops those moves immediately. It also provides a very clear paper trail for the liquidator, SAPS Commercial fraud unit and the banks to follow.

There seems to be some sympathy for the fraudster Jooste in certain circles. Anton Marcus pays credit to him after Legal Eagle wins. At Vascos on Sunday a stable employee from one of the Jooste favoured yards was telling all and sundry about poor Markus has been made the fall guy. This should stop. He deserves nothing but a jail cell and whatever he has done for the industry is mute.

I have no sympathy at all. In fact quiet the opposite as the implications for SA are dire, including the fiscus, as tax collection and assessed losses will be a problem if owners of shares have crystallized their losses!

The horses are owned by the bank, simple! They are assets/property of a financial institution that is owed money. The fact that they have decided to open and regulate 2 new accounts for a short period to realize the sale of the horses while making sure trainers still operate, one should also look at. Believe me the racing industry in this country could never swallow these horse on a forced auction. There is no new blood in the game and the 2 biggest buyers of bloodstock in recent time have fallen by the wayside.

Lets us also accept that only once and if charges are laid by authorities we have something to base things on... To my amazement Jooste resigned because of certain accounting irregularities, PWC were brought in independently to assess these, its close on a month and there has been no announcement on what these maybe,if it was overstatement of revenue than surely it does not take this long?

Horses aside, how did the auditors consent to a share buyback just a few weeks before this news broke, in essence they have taken shareholders funds and wiped out 80% of the value

Good post Flaunt ..

Pardon my pea brain :side: .....some clarity please. When a horse changes ownership,

1. HOW long does it take to register a new ownership. I ask this question based on that a foreign owner is NOW a PART OWNER of LE. When was LE bought and when was the new ownership REGISTERED? Did the Australian already have registered colours in SA? Did it mean that the Australian had to register his colours FIRST AND THEN BECOME AN OWNER IN LE or does he become a WALK IN OWNER..

DOCTOR R wrote: Pardon my pea brain :side: .....some clarity please. When a horse changes ownership,

1. HOW long does it take to register a new ownership. I ask this question based on that a foreign owner is NOW a PART OWNER of LE. When was LE bought and when was the new ownership REGISTERED? Did the Australian already have registered colours in SA? Did it mean that the Australian had to register his colours FIRST AND THEN BECOME AN OWNER IN LE or does he become a WALK IN OWNER..

HENDERSON is a SA colour owner so change of ownership is easy..

How long from purchase to registration??????

There wouldn't be any questions if the parties to the transactions were arms length to each other...from what I have gathered in the numerous posts, Steinhoff purchased BvH's company, possibly at an inflated price, and some of those funds have likely been used to now purchase LE, possibly at an inflated price...

....we forget that CvN was also a partner here.....he must have been in agreement with the offer and then sold out his share...therefore there is no dispute on fair value on this particular sale...

TNaicker wrote: There wouldn't be any questions if the parties to the transactions were arms length to each other...from what I have gathered in the numerous posts, Steinhoff purchased BvH's company, possibly at an inflated price, and some of those funds have likely been used to now purchase LE, possibly at an inflated price...

what you have gathered would seem to be incorrect:

reasons are, BVH sold a share in his company to a private equity fund a few years back. Steinhoff then bought 100% of the business earlier this year. If anything BVH should feel aggrieved as if the irregularities are to be believed he got hard done by as the Steinhoff share was overvalued in comparison or reflection to their true revenue/earnings.In theory BVH would have got many more Steinhoff shares if the share price was not inflated, so to assume that he bought a horse because he sold his business for an inflated price is actually obscene.To me it seems quiet simple, horse are for sale, there are prices that they seemed to be valued at which if judging by the recent sale of a parcel of 3 horse in PE is anything to go by, ABSA are extremely lucky that they are getting, in my opinion money for horses in training that they would not get on a horses in training auction.

Flaunt perhaps you could give your opinions on some questions that I have regarding this as you seem to have your finger on things that are not out in the public domain as yet. I do not share your apparent faith that transactions concluded are above board. I have some questions I would appreciate your views on

1. The ABSA matter against Mayfair has been postponed to early February as Judge Desai has decreed that this swindle affects a lot more entities than just ABSA. Investec and SANLAM are owed vast amounts too, and it is more probable than possible that other creditors will make their voices heard before the case resumes. Why do you believe that ABSA are currently involved in the sale of racehorses, seeing that there is no legal reason for them to be doing so at this moment in time.
2. Where are the monies being paid for horses sold, and who has control over this?
3. As you have alluded to, Tekkie Town was mainly a paper purchase funded by inflated value Steinhoff shares. BvH has in effect lost 90% of the value of the shares that were used to purchase his business. What sane man would continue doing business with the swindler who has on paper, decimated his material wealth? I personally cannot believe that money changed hands for Legal Eagle, it goes against all logic.

Looking forward to your response