Who Got Benjamins to Lend Me

Help Support CattleToday:

Bigfoot":3fziymz5 said:
If I'm not mistaken, Poco Bueno II is buried there feet down.

That is correct! He's one of those that makes me wish I had been born long ago, so I could seem them in person. I guess my legends books will just have to do! :cboy:
 
TexasBred":34c9kroc said:
One headline sort of explains the "why"
Showdown at Waggoner Ranch

It's second only to the King Ranch in size, and second to none in its history of drink, divorce, and dissension. For years, its two feuding clans have agreed on only one thing: They want to break up their vast eight-hundred-square-mile spread and close this chapter of Texas history.
- See more at: http://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/sh ... Cg7O5.dpuf


WOW!! That article is amazing. So W.T.'s intention back fired drastically on him and to this day still goes on. Amazing and sad to read. Reading this article I keep thinking of the Hattfields and McCoys.

W.T. WAGGONER HAD BUILT A GREAT RANCH, but in 1909 he was 57 years old and thinking about its future. The squabbling that has ensnared the ranch for almost a century began on Christmas Day of that year, when W.T. divided the ranch that he and his dad had founded into four large tracts. He kept the east side of the ranch, called White Face, for himself. The three smaller, 85,000-acre parcels—Zacaweista, Four Corners, and Santa Rosa—were gifts to his three children, Electra, Guy, and E. Paul. W.T. asked his children to draw cards for the three parcels. He secretly wanted his favorite, Electra, to draw Zacaweista, because it was nearest to his homestead. When E. Paul drew Zacaweista instead, W.T. declared a misdeal and had them draw again. Electra prevailed, as usual. The family feud began the moment the old man rigged the game.


G.L. Proctor says it best though:
"The only thing I can figure, it was give to them. Didn't any of them have to work or suffer to get it. That's the only reason anyone would want to sell."
 
Hey Brute!

So - instead of sharecropping you are sharebuying? That's a new concept I haven't heard before. LOL Hope you get a snicker out of the thought of what it says in your words.
 
Lets do some math..

At 725 million, 7000 hd, and $2000/hd for cattle, it would take 51 years (312,000 head of cattle) with no expenses or interest payments to pay for the ranch..

I really really have a hard time seeing this as a 'viable' investment.
 
Nesikep":56233mt3 said:
Lets do some math..

At 725 million, 7000 hd, and $2000/hd for cattle, it would take 51 years (312,000 head of cattle) with no expenses or interest payments to pay for the ranch..

I really really have a hard time seeing this as a 'viable' investment.

I'm no numbers guy so feel free to correct. But at around 1400 per. Acre. The land is half price . Plus 7000 head of cattle. 500 horses, 1000 oil wells. Numerous mansions, houses, bunk houses arena, stables , equipment etc. If you figure just hunting at a conservative 25.00 per acre you get 13 million per year.
If I had 725 million plus enough left for a bus ticket I think I would be there.
 
fenceman":2iuay60k said:
Nesikep":2iuay60k said:
Lets do some math..

At 725 million, 7000 hd, and $2000/hd for cattle, it would take 51 years (312,000 head of cattle) with no expenses or interest payments to pay for the ranch..

I really really have a hard time seeing this as a 'viable' investment.

I'm no numbers guy so feel free to correct. But at around 1400 per. Acre. The land is half price . Plus 7000 head of cattle. 500 horses, 1000 oil wells. Numerous mansions, houses, bunk houses arena, stables , equipment etc. If you figure just hunting at a conservative 25.00 per acre you get 13 million per year.
If I had 725 million plus enough left for a bus ticket I think I would be there.

I'd make them keep the 500 horses... that's enough to make you go broke alone.
 
I wouldn't want the headache of a place that large. Probably got 200 employees. That's enough to scare you off.
 
Dave":19sfbsnd said:
Do you suppose they want cash or would they take a check?

I was gonna write them a check too but they asked for a Debit Card....screwed that deal completely !!! :lol:
 
ga.prime":10i1h5qp said:
MudHog":10i1h5qp said:
I did overlook the ruling portion of the article, thanks for pointing that out. :tiphat: I knew about the 25% and that part of my post wasn't a question and simply a statement, except for the curiosity as to who is retaining the mineral rights. I suppose the whole estate is retaining the remaining 75% of the mineral rights? If that is the case, then selling the property to me means nothing because there will continue to be heir feuds.
The Bloomberg piece says the Waggoner family is retaining 25% of the mineral rights. I take that to mean the buyer will own the other 75%. This gives the new owner/buyer a majority voting block. Under the new ownership this should mean, but maybe it doesn't, the Waggoners will have no say so in what or when minerals get sold or not sold.
Minerals are seldom sold but if an oil company wants to drill they lease...with a thousand oil wells the entire place is probably already under lease and held by production.
 
What is the story on the litle parcels that are inside the ranch perimeter, but do not belong to the estate?

waggoner-detail-9.jpg
 
thought that might be of interest.
i know before the drought they had over 15,000 mother cows, never built back. and they make yearlings out of everything. includes some buildings in town, farming, water, good portion of the mineral rights, all the livestock and rolling stock etc., etc., etc.
those two have been fighting over it for 20 plus years at this point.
its been on the market actively since last winter.
 
Top