wadewood Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Chip is Balcones (no insult to Jared or Winston meant by that). My wild ass guess which should be given no more credence than Scott's alien theory is board received a buyout offer from much larger player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutton Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Money makes the decision. You want complete control, don't take the money.Investors are going to weigh what makes the business successful and the ability to sustain a competitive advantage - I'm sure Chip's skill/vision was a factor that drove their decision to invest in the first place and they wouldn't take an action against him without very carefully considering an alternative approach.Similarly I'd guess that whatever he did, he must have felt backed into a corner. Emotions on either side can lead to unintended outcomes. Let's wait for the facts and hope they find a path to reconciliation, whatever it was that pushed each side to this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Whatever happened, it's bad. I hope things get worked out for the best of everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trey Manthey Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 This is really bumming me out. I tasted a few special bottles from Chip's stash at Tales of the Cocktail that got me very excited for things to come. One two year barrel proof bourbon and a single malt aged in French Oak particularly stood out as being complex and mature beyond its age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Restaurant man Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 With a restraining order worded like it was, I doubt there will be a reconciliation. I look forward to chip's next project. I'm still a balcones customer, for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinjoe Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 With a restraining order worded like it was, I doubt there will be a reconciliation. I look forward to chip's next project. I'm still a balcones customer, for now.Has he announced a next project? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 He could take his stills elsewhere I suppose, I understand the investors have purchased new ones from Forsyths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TunnelTiger Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Some times you just can't stop someone from jumping off the bridge. Creative individuals don't assimilate well with bean counters and if some messes with his baby I understand completely.Gonna miss it when it does change because it definitely will and not for the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Skill creates a brand but business acumen makes it last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capn Jimbo Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 The Pros... 1. Chip Tate is a boy genius, a true artist (this reflects his self-description as a "composer at the junction of art and science". 2. His products are amazing, earning sixty awards. 3. He's a master distiller who needs to be left alone. 4. The bad old Board of Directors is trying to move him out before the new distillery is even built. 5. Yes, he's tempermental but when he threatened to shoot the chairman of the board, and implied he'd rather burn down the distillery than give up his control, it was just words, simply his style. Whew! The "pros" seem to be long time followers and fans. To them he is a true boy genius/artist can do no wrong and blame the situation on what they'd present as a hostile takeover. The Cons... Trust me there are just as many cons as pros, and I am one of them. After viewing Tate's own videos (nearly an hour of his blather) and significant other research, I was not impressed. Without going into detail, the consensus of cons... 1. Is Tate the artist and master the pro's put forth? No. What he is, like Thomas Edison, is a great experimenter. Tate is willing to tinker and try new things. He gets an "A" for uniqueness. But he is not even close to being a master distiller/blender - skills that take decades and mentorship. 2. Around here, few of us have any respect for the near unending paid-for awards handed out by the "fests" and "competitions". Spare me. The real story is that there's a real division among true experts. Murray, Pacult and Ralfy gave great reviews, although Ralfy's score was not exceptional. Dave Broom, a number of Whisky Magazine reviewers and Serge? Not so much, rather average. The former are recognizing the uniqueness, and newness. They want the new kid to succeed. But the experts who gave only average ratings reflected that in consideration of all issues these spirits were average. The point: the truly great spirits - think Lavagulin 16 – are almost universally praised.3. As far as being left alone, it is well to keep in mind that Tate selected the investors and - read this - sold them the company. His reward? A minority interest. When investors put up $10M dollars they insist on control, and will use it to protect and enhance their investment. If he failed to specify his control, shame on him and his cowboy attorney. Tate picked the investors, negotiated the deal, and signed it. 4. The idea that the bad old board intended to buy the company and then dump him - before the distillery was even built - is silly. Tate is far from the first inventive small business to sell out. But no buyer is going to dump the inventor before they even start up. Even if intended, they'd make sure that everything was up and running, that they'd extracted every bit of knowledge and usefulness before - very slowly - easing the guy out. This is especially important when your guy is very well known with a rabid following. You'd have to a fool to toss your founder/inventor/hero out suddenly and in mere months and before you made a drop of product. 5. This one is just stupid. Lots of people are tempermental, ego maniacal control freaks. But they don't make stupid and serious life-threatening and damaging threats. Those that do can end up in both civil and criminal court. The only reason the company has not made criminal charges? Smart businessmen, the company hopes that Tate's 90-day, "time-out" suspension will cool him off.There you have it... Both sides presented. The "pro" side was easy to present, the "con" side requires analysis from a distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverfish Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 5. Yes, he's tempermental but when he threatened to shoot the chairman of the board, and implied he'd rather burn down the distillery than give up his control, it was just words, simply his style. Whew! --snip--5. This one is just stupid. Lots of people are tempermental, ego maniacal control freaks. But they don't make stupid and serious life-threatening and damaging threats. Those that do can end up in both civil and criminal court. The only reason the company has not made criminal charges? Smart businessmen, the company hopes that Tate's 90-day, "time-out" suspension will cool him off.Like most others, my only information comes from the linked piece but anyonewho thinks that the shoot/burn comments attributed to Chip would not be takenseriously in 2014 is delusional. Jokingly made amongst the Good Ol' Boys in the rickhouse I can see maybe but even then it's bound to reach the ears of someone who will not see the humor in it.I enjoy a few Balcones products and hope this can settled amicably but there aresome things you cannot even joke about in this day & age. I doubt the "j/k, heat of the moment" defense would hold up in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinjoe Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Hmmm...guns...fire...Waco...Hmmmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil T Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Where are you coming from Jimbo? What is your motivation here?You've been a member for 6 1/2 yrs. And were totally silent until yesterday. .the thread you started yesterday, on the same subject, got axed..now you're back with the same commentary. What are you trying to accomplish? Just asking. .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capn Jimbo Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 (edited) Where are you coming from Jimbo? What is your motivation here?You've been a member for 6 1/2 yrs. And were totally silent until yesterday. .the thread you started yesterday, on the same subject, got axed..now you're back with the same commentary. What are you trying to accomplish? Just asking. .... Edited September 6, 2014 by Capn Jimbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capn Jimbo Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 (edited) · Hidden Hidden Where are you coming from Jimbo? What is your motivation here?You've been a member for 6 1/2 yrs. And were totally silent until yesterday. .the thread you started yesterday, on the same subject, got axed..now you're back with the same commentary. What are you trying to accomplish? Just asking. .... Edited September 6, 2014 by Capn Jimbo Link to comment
cowdery Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 On Facebook, I started a thread with the news story. Lots of other craft distillers commented to voice their support for Chip. Chip came on to say thank you and ask everyone to keep an open mind, but he can't say anything else. The news story was really just what the TRO filing said, which is on the public record. By its nature, something like that is one-sided. The directors haven't been talking either. I wouldn't read too much into the TRO, but I did have the same feeling that some of the reported hyperbole plays differently in Texas than it does in the rest of the world, although that's probably how people talk to each other in Afghanistan. I wouldn't jump to too many conclusions just yet. It's even possible it could be resolved. My comment is this. I know Chip Tate. Chip Tate is a genius. Balcones without Chip Tate is inconceivable. Any investor who doesn't understand this deserves to lose his investment, and will. So I can't see the investors going forward without Chip and if they try, they'll lose their asses because without Chip they've got nothing. They could shut it down and walk away. That would be tragic because what Chip has created there would be difficult for him or anyone else to duplicate. We'll just have to wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quantum Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 5. Yes, he's tempermental but when he threatened to shoot the chairman of the board, and implied he'd rather burn down the distillery than give up his control, it was just words, simply his style. Whew! -----5. This one is just stupid. Lots of people are tempermental, ego maniacal control freaks. But they don't make stupid and serious life-threatening and damaging threats. Those that do can end up in both civil and criminal court. The only reason the company has not made criminal charges? Smart businessmen, the company hopes that Tate's 90-day, "time-out" suspension will cool him off.First, I have not seen proof that he actually threatened to shoot the chairman of the board. He very well could have, but I haven't seen anything to confirm it. Second, there is a difference between making a comment about shooting someone, and actually threatening to shoot them. Yes they are both wrong, but its the difference between someone being jackass, and actually being in physical danger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearmark Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 I agree with Chuck… best to wait before passing judgment. Drawing conclusions for both sides from information provided by only one of them is at best presumptuous. Regardless of how this ends up, I think that Chuck has identified the most important aspect of the situation… "Balcones without Chip Tate is inconceivable." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 Well, I'm no rocket scientist, but I'll go out on a limb and say that this ain't gonna end amicably. So, with that said, does Chip get to take the purty still's? 'Cause that's all they got is HIM and THEM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bad_scientist Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 Balcones is a name brand now, with a great (and true) story behind it. That's worth more than the actual quality of the whiskey. The investors could change the profile until it's unrecognizable, but people still will buy it if the logo is the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thig Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 We have said it here before but how many consumers actually keep up with this "insider" information. I put insider in quotes because even though it is available to anyone most will never know about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danz Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 The Pros... ...The Cons... 3. As far as being left alone, it is well to keep in mind that Tate selected the investors and - read this - sold them the company. His reward? A minority interest. When investors put up $10M dollars they insist on control, and will use it to protect and enhance their investment. If he failed to specify his control, shame on him and his cowboy attorney. Tate picked the investors, negotiated the deal, and signed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capn Jimbo Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 (edited) I agree with Chuck… best to wait before passing judgment. Drawing conclusions for both sides from information provided by only one of them is at best presumptuous. Regardless of how this ends up, I think that Chuck has identified the most important aspect of the situation… "Balcones without Chip Tate is inconceivable." Edited September 7, 2014 by Capn Jimbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richnimrod Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 ......Orrrr, Maybe the judge is in someone's pocket. I don't know about this one judge in particular; but it is a tradition of long-standing that when one wishes to get the court to help out in a business sense, one usually has a judge to whom he can turn and expect favorable treatment.... IF one has lined the pocket of said judge..... just sayin'.In my neck of the woods, the person or group who expects fair treatment at the hands of many courts is rolling the dice at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thig Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 Rich that reminds me of the saying, "if you want justice go to the cat house, if you want to get screwed go to the court house." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts