SpotCo Sues Scott Rudin — Page 2

massofmen said: "BWYguy2. I didn't excuse him for any transgression. go back and read my post.

I asked why people wanted to "bleed him dry".
RUDIN (allegedly) owes $6.3 million to a marketing company. He will either settle or have his day in court. He didn't rape, kill, molest, kidnap, torture, etc anyone. Cancel culture is alive and well on the BWW board today. He will either pay his fine or not or settle.
The man should be "BLED DRY" for this? Please. He is worth some $250 million dollars. SO first. off, this won't hurt him a bit if it happens to be true that he owes this money.
Secondly,He pays his actors, directors, creatives, theater rent etc. Because of this (alleged) transgression he needs to be BLED DRY after being in the business for 30 years, producing some of the best movies in hollywood and best shows on broadway?

Calm down."

He pays the actors and the theaters because he won't have a show if he doesn't. He doesn't pay his vendors and investors because he's a powerful bully who can get away with it.

itsjustmejonhotmailcom said: "He pays the actors and the theaters because he won't have a show if he doesn't. He doesn't pay his vendors and investors because he's a powerful bully who can get away with it."

He pays actors (and all other union members) because that is contractual and there are bonds that would pay them if he did not.

He does not pay theatres because they get their money before he ever gets his hot little hands on it.

He does pay vendors, just not enough and not when due, because he is an odious person. And they continue to do business with him because it is a good source of major revenue in spite of his sliminess.

And he does pay investors, when he feels like it, and they too keep coming back for more "abuse" because it is worth it to them.

I do not believe that any defense of his behavior is called for and I don't believe that the good in some way counteracts the bad. Each of us can choose whether to loathe the bad and enjoy the good, boycott the good to punish the bad, or some other response I can't think of on a Sunday afternoon. As disgusting etc as this way of dealing is to me, it does not appear to be criminal, and our system of justice has mechanisms by which the aggrieved can rectify the situation in which they find themselves in their own way.

massofmen said: "He doesn't pay his investors? Where is that in print?
Do you have proof of that?"

I didn't mean that he literally doesn't pay them at all. He has a reputation for overspending on his shows and his investors not making much money on shows you would have thought did well, eg Dolly. That show definitely made money for Rudin but not much for the investors.

HogansHero said: "itsjustmejonhotmailcom said: "massofmen said: "He doesn't pay his investors? Where is that in print?
Do you have proof of that?"

I didn't mean that he literally doesn't pay them at all. He has a reputation for overspending on his shows and his investors not making much money on shows you would have thought did well, eg Dolly. That show definitely made money for Rudin but not much for the investors."

Sorry, but you really ought not post things you don't actually know and understand."

Is there something I have misunderstood?

broadwayguy2 said: "It always turns my stomach when SOMEONE commits a transgression of some form or another and EVERY time someone trots out the "But they did this work or that work or that work" to try to shame the person calling the offender to task.

Every.

Single.

Time.

The older I get, the more I have a visceral reaction."

Interesting. I consider one of the hallmarks of adulthood the ability to look at people's behavior on a wider spectrum and assess them overall based on all aspects of their personality and accomplishments. Isolating one aspect of personality or behavior and judging or condemning a person solely on that strikes me as rather childish.

Working with just an oral agreement is one pretty dumb thing. Averaging one million dollars worth of unpaid labor every year for six years straight? That's just stupid.

itsjustmejonhotmailcom said: "When Dolly had a huge advance and was more or less sold out, and he continued weekly full-page ads in the Times, large outdoor spends around Times Square, and a healthy radio and TV spend,would you not call that overspending? Seems like there easily could have been $100k/week during that time that could have gone to making investors whole. And as to "much," most investors expected to make more than they did given how well the show sold."

You are still conflating two unrelated things. Before I get to that, though, the record will reflect that on numerous occasions I have mocked Rudin on this board for his silly spending on ads etc. and have criticized him robustly on any number of subjects. This is not about that, however. The truth is that (a) this is what Rudin does (and did before Dolly) and any investor who did their due diligence knew that, and (b) no one tricked anyone into investing in the show (and in fact Rudin's investors are mostly repeat investors and do not include unsavvy individuals who will be a nuisance to him). Finally, how did you go about determining what "most investors expected"? Maybe you would like to amend that to say what YOU would have expected had you invested, the same way you amended the statement that he didn't pay investors...

Our opinions probably don't differ much, but when you state facts, you should make sure they are factual before you write them.

Reading all the posts here reminds me of a film producer in the mid 60's Samuel Bronston

He was located in Spain as he had a deal with the government who would loan him various groups of people for use as extras. Making them there reduced the costs as well. His main backer was a son in the DuPont Chemical family. The film's were beautiful to watch He spared no expense and money flowed out like a raging river! He tore down a totally completed set to build a new set for his next project.After it was over what was left of the set was torn down to be replaced by the one he previously demolished . After the epic film phase left Hollywood he was screwed. His next to last movie was Fall Of The Roman Empire

It flopped and it took him down with it. The company went belly up. He knew how to make movies but was a failed producer money wise. Go on You Tube for Commodus Entry into Rome. This is the set that was torn down rebuilt and torn down for good. He really was not like Rudin but his spending is what killed the company. By the way where the Forum was is now a housing development.

Updated On: 8/10/20 at 02:31 PM

itsjustmejonhotmailcom said: "HogansHero said: "itsjustmejonhotmailcom said: "When Dolly had a huge advance and was more or less sold out, and he continued weekly full-page ads in the Times, large outdoor spends around Times Square, and a healthy radio and TV spend,would you not call that overspending? Seems like there easily could have been $100k/week during that time that could have gone to making investors whole. And as to "much," most investors expected to make more than they did given how well the show sold."

You are still conflating two unrelated things. Before I get to that, though, the record will reflect that on numerous occasions I have mocked Rudin on this board for his silly spending on ads etc. and have criticized him robustly on any number of subjects. This is not about that, however. The truth is that (a) this is what Rudin does (and did before Dolly) and any investor who did their due diligence knew that, and (b) no one tricked anyone into investing in the show (and in fact Rudin's investors are mostly repeat investors and do not include unsavvy individuals who will be a nuisance to him). Finally, how did you go about determining what "most investors expected"? Maybe you would like to amend that to say what YOU would have expected had you invested, the same way you amended the statement thathe didn't pay investors...

Our opinions probably don't differ much, but when you state facts, you should make sure they are factual before you write them."

I expected to make more than the 15% or so we did (I invested in the show) and I said that most of the investors felt the same, because I was at a meeting, on the mezzanine level of Glass House Tavern about 6 months after the show closed, with about 16 other investors, where we discussed how the lack of communication was bad even by Rudin standards and the consensus was that the return should have been higher. Granted that was based on what little we knew, and as you pointed out, investors on his shows knew or should have known what they were getting into."

To be honest, with the money that was spent on that production and the operating cost, and I appreciated what I saw 100%, I am surprised that it got up to 15% It was a glorious production, but a visible money vacuum.

So Scott pays his investors (you now admit), his actors, the theaters, IATSE, wardrobe, merchandise, and every other person he has a written contract with. Just not the people he allegedly had a verbal contract with. So basically what i said in the first place.