Why Ben Sprecher pisses me off and is not a competent producer... — Page 3

I don't think Jane wants to talk about it, Joey. She deleted that post.

Yes, except in this case there is proof. Mark Hotton has a shady track record easily found online. Reputable people generally don't deal with those who have been implicated in criminal conduct. By engaging with Mark, Ben automatically tore down part of the safety wall around his venture.

Furthermore, the fact that Ben never met or even spoke directly with Paul Abrams shows less guards were at the bank. Far from standard and customary procedure. This is not in hindsight, the process has now been documented in the NY Times.

Reputable people generally don't deal with those who have been implicated in criminal conduct.

I think you'd be surprised. I wrote above that my own father is a professional con artist. He has bankrupted dozens, if not hundreds, of people and/or stolen their life savings, and still manages to "rise from the dead" after each disaster to find new pigeons. (Or he did the last I heard. He's been on the lam for some time now.)

If Hotton had an agreement to receive a commission on the investment from "Abrams" and others, then Ben might well expect Hotton to supply limited info. Otherwise, what would prevent Ben from contacting the "investors" directly and cutting Hotton out of the deal? (That, I suspect, is the answer to your question as to why Sprecher didn't insist on personal contact with Abrams.)

People continued to work with David Merrick despite all sorts of shenanigans, financial and personal. They worked with Jerry Robbins regardless of his personal failings and often nasty demeanor.

David Begelman robbed Judy Garland and other clients, forged checks and became the head of Columbia Pictures. When Cliff Robertson finally blew the whistle on Begelman's forgery, it was Robertson who was blamed and his career that was ruined. Begelman went on to become CEO of MGM.

It's amazing what people will overlook when they believe someone makes, has or has access to a great deal of money. Ben Sprecher is hardly the first to be fooled.

Updated On: 10/9/12 at 07:30 PM

Before departing this conversation, I'd like to share the following quotes.

NY Times: Rebecca Sees Investor Fade, as if Dreamt
http://nyti.ms/TuXD6R

"I've never heard of a situation where you didn't at least meet the person raising 30 percent of your show budget," said Robert E. Wankel, president of the Shubert Organization, one of the big three Broadway landlords and a six-figure investor in "Rebecca" as well as the owner of its intended theater, the Broadhurst.

"Broadway does business in its own strange way, I'll grant you," Mr. Wankel said. "But this is the strangest bit of show business to come along in a long time."


and


"Mr. Sprecher developed close ties to the Shubert Organization while running an Off Broadway theater for it, which helps explain the Shubert executives' flexibility with him." - to answer your question GavestonPS, of why the Shubert's accepted Ben's assertions of being fully financed.


and


"Emanuel Azenberg, a veteran Broadway producer who counts Mr. Sprecher as a friend, said he feared that Mr. Sprecher "may have bitten off more than he can chew" in his attempt to become a player on Broadway."

"There are only a handful of Broadway producers who have the money and contacts to take on a major musical as a lead producer," said Mr. Azenberg, who brought Mr. Sprecher on as a producer of Broadway plays like the 2005 revival of "The Odd Couple." (Mr. Azenberg is not involved with "Rebecca.") "If Ben ends up raising the money, it will be an incredible comeback. If he doesn't, he'll face a lot of difficulties producing again."


Enough said.

Updated On: 10/10/12 at 05:42 AM

Bbob, you are hilarious. Ben Sprecher's Broadway career is not "over"-- I would wager this episode will motivate him to work even harder. You're just being mean. You obviously don't like Ben. Well, I don't like Mitt Romney. But I would say it to his face, and not be a coward and anonymously attack someone on a message board.

Yes, bob, I suggested you were choosing only the quotes that suit your argument. I did not accuse you of misquoting or of manufacturing quotations out of thin air. But that isn't the only article from the TIMES and some of your assertions and interpretations are precisely contradicted in other TIMES articles, which are linked above. So the truth is still out there.

You've chosen not to respond to my suggestion that the problem may have stemmed from Ben's unusual "finder's fee" arrangement with Hotton, an arrangement that may have led Ben to expect Hotton to protect Hotton's own commission by offering less than full disclosure of investor info. Why would Ben suspect fraud when we can't figure it out either? It doesn't, in fact, make any financial sense for Hotton to invent phony investors, and somebody is still responding now and then from Abrams' "office", according to the article you found.

(An imperfect but true analogy: 20 years ago, an acquaintance of mine met David Hasselhoff and played him a song I co-wrote; Hasselhoff expressed an interest in recording it. The acquaintance offered to put my collaborator and I in touch with Hasselhoff in return for a "finder's fee", a percentage of the recording rights. I passed, because I was underwhelmed by the singer and offended at how the acquaintance was treating my co-writer: the two were long-time friends. NEVER DID I ASK FOR PROOF of Hasselhoff's interest, because the acquaintance seemed to have no reason to lie about the matter, i.e., she wouldn't get a dime unless the Hasselhoff story was true.

This is a trivial example compared to a third of the financing for a Broadway show, but the principle and the lack of confirmation are roughly the same.)

Was Sprecher's arrangement with Hotton a mistake? I think we can now say yes, it almost literally blew up the show.

So Ben Sprecher used a creative method to try to achieve the near-impossible task of financing a Broadway musical without backing from a large corporation. It didn't work. That's a shame for all involved, but it doesn't make Ben Sprecher the Antichrist. And I promise you it's neither the first nor last time somebody reached for a creative way to finance a show.

Updated On: 10/10/12 at 06:38 PM

Are you reading MY posts, B-bob, or is this a one-way transmission?

OBVIOUSLY, the gambit did not work and Sprecher lost his financing. So, for the moment, he has failed.

But from reading your posts, you would think he was the first producer ever to close a show before rehearsals began, and we know that isn't true.

I'm suggesting the fiasco may have resulted from the method he used to obtain that last $4.5 million. That isn't a defense of the maneuver, but it's at least an analytical idea and not another generalized rant. And, yes, it is consistent with other quotes that have said giving somebody a commission for bringing in investors is NOT standard procedure on Broadway.

This case may eventually prove why it is not standard procedure.

Thanks for the suggestion, bobs3, but I think B-bob and I are fine. We've almost certainly taken this discussion as far as it can go unless and until we get more inside info.

GavestonPS, no Ben Sprecher is not the first producer to cancel a show before t begins rehearsals. However in this instance the cancellation of a show and loss of millions of dollars is DIRECTLY his fault. Even if Ben was scammed, due to his negligent practices, he left the door wide open.

Comission based financing is not standard for Broadway. It's no big deal that Brn decided to pursue this option. His mistake is that he took the situation completely at face value, with no due diligence what so ever. You seem to want to ignore this point, despite the fact that it has lost hundreds of people their jobs and caused significant monetary damage.

So to once again quote the President of the Shubert Organization, THIS IS THE REASON WHY BEN IS NOT A COMPETENT PRODUCER. THIS IS HOW HE OPENED HIMSELF UP TO POTENTIALLY BEING TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF. THIS IS NOT WHAT A VETERAN PRODUCER DOES DESPITE WHICHEVER METHOD OF CREATIVE FINANCING HE OR SHE MAY ENGAGE WITH:

Robert E. Wankel - "I've never heard of a situation where you didn't at least meet the person raising 30 percent of your show budget."

NO METHOD OF RAISING MONEY MAKES UP FOR THE ABOVE LACK OF COMPETENCE! This is so ridiculous. I've raised over $10 million in my career as a Broadway financier and I'm sitting here arguing with some assistant who has clearly no comprehension of the business process that goes into mounting these shows. How you can sit here and blindly defend a guy who just lost millions of dollars because of his own stupid decisions is really, really disheartening. Life is about to take its course as it always does, and Ben is about to unfortunately loose his shirt. But please continue and tell us why it's ok that hundreds are now out of work and millions lost... How about you go run a business first and then come back to me with a real opinion? One that has actual perspective.

Well, GavestonPS, we now know that Ben advanced Mark Hotton 60k. So to counter your argument, Ben had absolutely no reason not to conduct due diligence.

Ad I've previously said, he made incompetent decisions and gambled with his investor's money.

Not exactly. If I worked with him, I'd still think it was incompetent and incredibly risky. He would have just happened to got lucky and it paid off. Lots of people get lucky. It doesn't mean they're all smart. That's why you have to look at track records.