Huh?
We already have Drouhin, Jadot, Meo, Goodfellow, Hamina, Anderson and Fritzsche.
1 Like
The more the merrier!
I love Oregon wines!
｣
Not really hard to understand.
Just more confirmation of great wines and great future potential.
They already had major French investment. Bolly isn’t some new status for them.
Any new investment is news!
That is why the post was made!
I actually didnt know about Jadot! What winery are they involved with?
Resonance
1 Like
Resonance. I think they bought it about 8-10 years ago?
1 Like
So, who buys Eyrie?
The two Dick’s and two Dave’s show only has one member left who hasn’t sold (Adelsheim, Erath, Ponzi).
Of the larger winery groups, KJ strikes me as one of the more quality oriented, less ‘race to the bottom’ minded of the group. I don’t explicitly seek out KJ wines, but generally I’ve found quality lines up reasonably with their pricing. Within Santa Barbara County, they’ve acquired respected brands and have well-positioned vineyards in generally cooler areas of the AVA (though I have no knowledge of their vinicultural practices).
Of course they have their mass market Chardonnay and the like, but I don’t perceive outright cynical behavior in their premium lineups like planting Pinot far inland in hot climates or making Meomi-style red wine then calling it Pinot.
I’m not ITB, but in tech its the minority that can make M&A make 1+1=3. For those involved, I hope that’s the case.
And for a bit of brevity, here’s a photo I took at Bridgeport, back when smoking indoors was allowed:
Succession planning is a complex thing and take a lot of time to develop and transition, regardless of it’s a keeping it in the family or a sale. I’d be surprised if the Letts aren’t working on their succession planning already. Though I reckon we’re still a few years away from seeing that materialise. Jason’s still fairly young, low-50s I think? So I imagine that unless circumstances change, he’ll continue doing what he’s been doing since 2005. What happens then likely depend on what the succession outlook is like for the Letts.
I’d imagine, and hope, that they’d go somewhat along the likes of Ponzi or Williams Selyem, where, if they sell, it’s to a wine family with a long history of creating and maintaining brands. But given Eyrie’s historical significant in Oregon, bigger brands might be willing to pay a lot more, and sometimes that’s a hard factor to overlook if you’re selling your business.
SevenFifty Daily wrote an interesting article on how some Sonoma wineries are tackling succession planning a while back. Was interesting to see the different approaches.
2 Likes
![[rofl.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/a/a7452fcd8e675af869f8da01174474a545b03944.gif "rofl"){kind=small}
As in, having made wine in the same facility with Todd, I think we’re pretty real and he’s funny as hell…but neither of us likes anyone else to do our punchdowns, so it’s always more sweat than “star”.
Well put, as always.
Bollinger has a bunch of investors, and it’s taking money from the first investors to buy the winery, then attracting new investors and using their money to pay a return to those original investors, and then getting still more investors …
That sounds like some kind scheme Chris, hmmm 
2 Likes
As far as I’m aware, the Bollinger family remains the sole owners of Société Jacques Bollinger SA (SJB), the holding company that owns most of their assets.
I’m oversimplifying it a bit, but individual family members of the Bollinger family own shares in SJB (either directly or indirectly), and SJB in turn owns the operating assets: wineries, distributors, etc. SJB is the entity that purchased Ponzi.
As a holding company, SJB may borrow some money to conduct acquisitions, but in those case, those are almost exclusively done on the balance sheet of the acquired company.
I think you might want to re-read the post and the follow up post.
In my experience, it’s the rare M&A transaction where 1+1=2. I think I’ve seen more where 1+1=0.
1 Like