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

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/9/12 at 7:37am

I wish him well and I really do hope he recovers.

Don't be disingenuous. You do not. Or you wouldn't have posted the same attacks over and over again in the thread.

But to bash him repeatedly, professionally and personally, then to claim that you wish him well is transparently false.

Now let's get back to the important matter: Jane selling sex toys at intermission.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 10/9/12 at 5:42pm

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

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 10/9/12 at 5:57pm

You don't owe me an apology, B-bob. In one sense, you and I are saying much the same thing: the whole story is far from known at this time.

I haven't worked in the commercial theater in a long time and I'm sure it is greatly changed. But my point has been that Broadway has unique practices and I haven't yet seen much that claims Ben Sprecher varied from those practices. (As you point out, he also has not been exonerated.)

The one exception is the "finder's fee" promised to Hotton for bringing in investors. The TIMES claims that was unusual. But as I've said, one would think such an arrangement would have given Hotton incentive to vet his investors himself. A commission arrangement in and of itself isn't usually an invitation to commit fraud.

Now that the worst has happened, I don't think anybody can disagree with your assessment of what "should" have been done.

But after a bank has been robbed, it's easy to agree it should have had more security guards. That doesn't prove it had fewer guards than other banks.

[Broadwaybob2]

Posted: 10/9/12 at 6:13pm

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.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 10/9/12 at 6:38pm

"reliable people generally don't deal with those who have been implicated in criminal conduct."
They hired Barbour too.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 10/9/12 at 7:30pm

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

[Broadwaybob2]

Posted: 10/9/12 at 7:59pm

GavestonPS - you've worn me out. I don't have time to go tit for tat on every single point. I'm a big picture guy.

End of the day - Sprecher risked his investor's money and Rebecca's future on an investor he never met or had any contact with. He put his trust in the hands of a man who has committed criminal acts. This information is publicly available. Do people make comebacks, sure. Is it smart to leverage a third of your show on someone's comeback? Probably not.

We can debate the small issues for days and days. Point blank, Sprecher's Broadway career is over. No theater owner will trust him again and he'll be hard pressed to find investors. If he only got scammed, people would forgive him. His incompetence and overly risky decisions is why the community will no longer trust him. History will speak for itself. No need to argue any further. There's excuses in life for everything. They never fully rectify the big picture.

Updated On: 10/10/12 at 07:59 PM

[Broadwaybob2]

Posted: 10/10/12 at 5:42am

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

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 10/10/12 at 8:06am

Talk about cherry-picking your quotes, B-bob! The first paragraph of your link makes exactly the point I've been making:

"The business of Broadway has always been cloaked in mystery. Most of its 40 theaters are run by three private organizations that operate out of public view. Producers keep deal-making under wraps. The biggest mystery of all is why so many sophisticated investors go along with business-as-usual on Broadway when few shows turn a profit."

Further, the article only says the REBECCA affair is the most bewildering "lately". It doesn't claim it's the oddest ever. And whatever the personal relationship between Ben and the Shuberts, a previous article QUOTES someone from the Shuberts saying that Ben shared his due diligence documentation, they didn't just take his word on everything.

I've worked with Manny Azenburg and, as far as I know, he remains one of the most respected producers on Broadway. But, per your link, Azenburg counts Ben Sprecher "as a friend". Second, look at Manny's language (basically, to paraphrase: it's difficult for any individual producer to get a big musical on Broadway; it will be even more difficult for Sprecher if REBECCA fails) and compare it with your continued hollering that "BEN SPRECHER WILL NEVER WORK IN THIS TOWN AGAIN!"

You also skipped over the part where Ben is quoted admitting he made mistakes in his zeal to get the show financed. You've been screaming for pages that Ben hasn't been sufficiently apologetic, yet you ignore him when he obliges.

I've admitted my bias here, though mostly I've just been playing devil's advocate. Why do you feel such impassioned glee at the suffering and potential failure of somebody who tried to produce a show?







Updated On: 10/10/12 at 08:06 AM

[PatrickDennis92]

Posted: 10/10/12 at 2:58pm

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.

[Broadwaybob2]

Posted: 10/10/12 at 4:54pm

GavestonPS - quite simple. I started out by saying that whether Ben is a good guy or bad guy, it's immaterial as he made irresponsible and incompetent decisions. No one bases over a third of their show's capitalization on an investor they've never met or had contact with. My quote from the President of the Shubert Organization provides validity to my point from one of the most powerful men on Broadway.

Just because you provide a quote that says the business of Broadway is "cloaked in mystery", it doesn't mitigate the quotes I posted from Broadway professionals claiming Ben did not follow the standard and customary procedure of vetting investors.

There's nothing to pick apart. The quotes are in black and white in my last post for those who want to see, and I provide a link to the NY Times article so that one may read the full context in which they're used.

Updated On: 10/10/12 at 04:54 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 10/10/12 at 6:38pm

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

[Broadwaybob2]

Posted: 10/10/12 at 7:51pm

To once again quote the president of the Shubert Organization, "I've never heard of a situation where you didn't at least meet the person raising 30 percent of your show budget."

It's fine to engage in creative methods of fundraising - but you don't leave so much to chance. No matter what the situation is or perceived incentive, it's an amateurish move. There's too much bull**** in the entertainment industry where a veteran wouldn't accept a story fully on the surface, without any due diligence, a meeting, a phone call, references etc.

No one is criticizing Ben for trying to make REBECCA happen out of thin air. It's the lack of precautions he took while gambling with investor's money. If you lost a million dollars because of this guy, would you find it acceptable he never met or spoke directly with the man who was supposed to be supporting a third of the show?

Updated On: 10/10/12 at 07:51 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 10/10/12 at 8:29pm

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.

[bobs3]

Posted: 10/10/12 at 8:39pm

I think GavestonPS and Broadwaybob2 need to get a room, get naked, do it, and get it out your systems.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 10/10/12 at 8:46pm

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.

[Broadwaybob2]

Posted: 10/11/12 at 2:48am

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.

[Broadwaybob2]

Posted: 10/11/12 at 2:49am

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.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 10/11/12 at 10:20am

Well, I see we've now stooped to idiotic personal attacks. I'm devastated, I'm sure.

For the record, I worked as an assistant producer 35 years ago! There's no shame in that and I have never tried to deny it. But it isn't something I've done recently, nor have I claimed to do so.

Given the lack of specificity in your replies, I assume you hired a lawyer to read aloud and explain the prospectuses of the shows for which you raised all that money. Perhaps he or she could read my posts and help you craft a response...

(Hint: rather than defending Ben, I was suggesting that the method he reportedly used to secure the final $4.5 million was inherently flawed. Your lawyer can explain.)

Updated On: 10/11/12 at 10:20 AM

[Broadwaybob2]

Posted: 10/15/12 at 8:38pm

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.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 10/16/12 at 6:24pm

Yes, we do know that NOW, B-bob, and Ben advancing Hotton $60K is very hard to defend. I won't try, certainly not at the moment. (No doubt there are additional details we still don't know.)

I was merely trying to bring the conversation to specifics, rather than throwing a word like "incompetent" around willy-nilly. David Merrick was incompetent in his production of BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S and THE HAPPY TIME, but nobody today thinks those two famous failures sum up his career.

Every time a produce fails to get a show up (which happens more often than success, as you know), s/he is "incompetent" in that context. I don't see what repeating the claim teaches us.

None of the new info changes my mind that the "finder's fee" method of financing a Broadway show may be inherently flawed because the "finder" has every reason not to disclose too much about his investors and the producer may be lulled into a false sense of security. I still think that may have happened here.

If I'm right, that doesn't absolve Sprecher of all blame; it merely makes the lesson to be learned here more generally relevant than a personal attack on one producer. And I certainly agree that advancing $60K to the "finder" makes the method seem all the more ill-advised.

BUT: IF Hotton had been legit and IF Ben had successfully raised the full capital for REBECCA, we'd be hailing his "finder's fee" method as genius, rather than calling him names. 'Cause THAT'S how show biz works.

[Broadwaybob2]

Posted: 10/17/12 at 1:57am

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.

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 10/17/12 at 2:07am

Oh, f**king hell, would you give it a rest already? Christ, I didn't harp on Godspell half this much, and already I'm sure I feel what everyone else felt when I was doing that, to say nothing of having tremendous new sympathy for everyone who had to deal with me then. We get it, he screwed up. Find something else to yammer on about.

Updated On: 10/17/12 at 02:07 AM