Why has the 2012 syndicate monthly payment not decreased????

A further rather delicate issue which I am somewhat loathe to raise is that  perhaps not all contributions are being made when due and a conservative approach is called for.

For example should a member pass away, or leaves the country or gets into financial difficulty (scammed?) etc.etc.  there could be financial issues which the manager has to deal with.  So the course of syndicate management ( to misquote Mr.Shakespeare) may not always run smooth.

Yes it is the infamous vet bill and the desire to maintain a travel fund that is put forward as the reason for maintaining the higher level of contributions.

But my point is this;
The monthly contributions are set at such a level to allow all horses in the syndicate (whether it be a 1, 2 or 3 horse syndicate) to be in training at any one time. Belle has not been in training for some time now and we have instead been paying grazing fees, which by my experience with other personally owned horses and other trainers equates to about 25% of a normal monthly training cost. Belle has thus not been spending all of her monthly "allocation" for want of a better word, which should generate a surplus or buffer each month that she is not in full training.
The vet bill equates to approximately two months worth of full training cost so I struggle to understand why her accrued surplus is not enough to take care of this one off vet cost without calling on members to stump up further funds.

I'm not suggesting for a minute that I cannot or will not pay as requested, what I don't follow is the logic behind why it is necessary in the first place.

Thanks for raising that question Ray as normally the monthly payment will be reduced upon sale.

I can only assume that the lurking vet bill, which is currently under dispute, and the policy to retain a $10,000 travel fund are the main matters at issue at present.

Meanwhile" we must be patient", to quote you know who.

Major Star was sold as of 11th May and the syndicate is now down to one horse.
We have been paying $120 per month per share which is $6,000 per month.
Only one horse, Star, has been in training and Belle has been spelling due to injury. We have thus been paying normal monthly costs for Star but our monthly outgoings have been reduced in regard to Belle as we are not paying full daily training costs and are only paying grazing fees.
Yes we are all aware there was a large one-off vet bill but realistically a cash surplus should have accrued for Belle over the months when she is spelling and her training costs are suspended. Grazing costs are considerably less than full training costs.

If Belle had been in full training over the past 6 months would not that have cost more than the recent vet bills??

I have this evening queried with Rob Carr as to why the monthly costs have not been reduced and why this was not advised in the May newsletter.
I will not publish his reply in full but it was along the lines that this issue was being monitored and an adjustment will be advised when deemed feasible, that the higher expenses recently (ie. the vet bill) and travel fund are also a factor.

We are therefore expected to continue paying the fee for two horses for the foreseeable future until they deem the syndicate finances to be sound.
As an accountant I struggle to see how the syndicate finances could not be in a sound position when $6,000 a month is paid in by syndicate members and you only have one horse in full training.