# Uthopia



## eahotson (27 August 2012)

Can't be sold as no is prepared to own up to owning him! What fun eh?


----------



## joeanne (27 August 2012)

Well in that case.....he might just belong to me.....when can I collect?


----------



## Miss L Toe (27 August 2012)

I am Uthopia!


----------



## Rowreach (27 August 2012)

I must say the thought had crossed my mind that it was a bit odd to be telling everyone you own one of the world's most valuable horses when you have been declared bankrupt.


----------



## Suelin (27 August 2012)

"Oh what a tangled web we weave" is springing to mind.


----------



## Koala Kate (27 August 2012)

Who? What ? Where ?
Someone explain please


----------



## StarcatcherWilliam (27 August 2012)

According to Carl Hester's website, he is owned by... Carl Hester...


----------



## Koala Kate (27 August 2012)

Well he is isn't he ?
Part owned at least


----------



## StarcatcherWilliam (27 August 2012)

Koala Kate said:



			Well he is isn't he ?
Part owned at least
		
Click to expand...

Yep!


----------



## galaxy (27 August 2012)

All sounds very messy and complicated!!!

Carl only owns a very small % of the horse


----------



## Koala Kate (27 August 2012)

Who's been declared bankrupt and saying that they own him then ? I'm confused !


----------



## galaxy (27 August 2012)

Koala Kate said:



			Who's been declared bankrupt and saying that they own him then ? I'm confused !
		
Click to expand...

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/388/313870.html


----------



## Koala Kate (27 August 2012)

Thank you !


----------



## Xander (27 August 2012)

Miss L Toe said:



			I am Uthopia!
		
Click to expand...

And so's my wife


----------



## StarcatcherWilliam (27 August 2012)

Certainly does sound messy! Poor Carl will never get to pay his mortgage off now!


----------



## MillionDollar (29 August 2012)

He will if/when he sells Valegro. He owns 50% of him and if they sell him for the rumoured £6m, he'll easily pay off the mortgage


----------



## JANANI (29 August 2012)

One of Mr Harrisons companys in administration. Shows lack of research in H&H. They should dig a little further.


----------



## kirstys 1 (29 August 2012)

Xander said:



			And so's my wife 

Click to expand...


----------



## christine48 (29 August 2012)

Could get very messy, I wonder if he'll end up like the Eurocommerse stallions.at the end of the day Carl has said all along that Sacha is a part owner so it's difficult to retract that comment. If as they now say he was sold to an anonymous party, the debt company will want to know who to and how much he was sold for. If at the time she was declared bankrupt they will want this money back.


----------



## Renvers (29 August 2012)

Suelin said:



			"Oh what a tangled web we weave" is springing to mind.
		
Click to expand...

I thought this too when I read the article. I hope Carl is able to capitalise on his success with this horse.


----------



## JANANI (29 August 2012)

Or who purchased the horse in the first place. After all with a horse like that there will be a cash audit trail as he wouldn't have been cheap to purchase in the first place.


----------



## TarrSteps (30 August 2012)

Well, Stewart and Harrison presumably owned the horse originally as listed with the FEI, and there would have been no issue at that point if they were both liquid. The dodgy bit is the horse being transferred solely to his name and then Stewart popping up again after her bankruptcy was resolved. You can see why they think she may have tried to hide assets!

The problem re Carl realising his investment is that he MAY not have had the right to purchase the horse in the first place. I'm sure their argument will be Stewart sold him to raise cash and then reinvested when her problems got sorted but it does look sticky.

Poor Carl, he wouldn't be the first rider to get into trouble trying to keep the ride on a good horse.


----------



## attheponies (31 August 2012)

TarrSteps said:



			Well, Stewart and Harrison presumably owned the horse originally as listed with the FEI, and there would have been no issue at that point if they were both liquid. The dodgy bit is the horse being transferred solely to his name and then Stewart popping up again after her bankruptcy was resolved. You can see why they think she may have tried to hide assets!

The problem re Carl realising his investment is that he MAY not have had the right to purchase the horse in the first place. I'm sure their argument will be Stewart sold him to raise cash and then reinvested when her problems got sorted but it does look sticky.

Poor Carl, he wouldn't be the first rider to get into trouble trying to keep the ride on a good horse. 

Click to expand...

Agree with above, without knowing all the details it appears at face value as though ownership of the horse was transferred conveniently to avoid creditors. Always seems particularly sad when its a living, breathing animal involved.


----------

