The New York herald., 1921-12-19
Garden Venture Success,
Declares Tex Rickard
Has Obtained Stay in the Re-
ceivership.

Tex Rtckard yesterday insisted that
the appointment of two receivers for
his enterprises, within Madison Square
Garden doesn't mean anything.
I'm the first place. declared Rick
ard, in a statement embracing his legal
tilt with Frank C. Armstrong of New
York. II already have secured from the
court stay of execution in the matter
of receivership. No receivers will take
possession of the properties until 1
have had chance to prove to the court
that the appointment of receivers Is an
action which is wholly unwarranted and
not within the law as regards my prop
critics.
mot only are the Madison Square
Garden enterprises under my control
we'll managed and well conducted, but
they are showing profits which. in ratio
to investment, are beyond anything of
their kind in the world OF all the
many boxing shows which i have put
on within the Garden since / took con-
troll, only two ever lost money. One
was $1,000 loser and the other lost
$4,000. That, i am confident, is a
record without parallel
Naturally, then, 1 am prepared not
cnly to show that my management Of
the properties has rolled UP huge profits
for both concerns, but also to show
that the management OF those proper
ties by receivers would, instead Of help
ing financial matters, possibly act the
ether way"
Armstrong Not n Partner.
Rickard. discussing Armstrong, and
the claim by Armstrong that Rickard
double crossed him. said:
Armstrong; claim that he was a
partner of mine in securing the lease
on the Garden and that he was a part
ner of mine in other ventures is an
absurdity. I say that Armstrong never
was a partner of mine In the full sense
of the word.
'Tt is true that we held stock in the
same oil company. But that didn't
make US partners any more than 1t
would make a bootblack and a million
aire partners In a mining company IL
the bootblack held single share of ten
cent stock and the millionaire owned
q million dollars worth.
81 have known Armstrong for years.
We were friends. But that doesn't
mean business partnership. l never
got dollar from Armstrong and he
never got dollar from me. We never
ness deal. We did discuss various busi-
ness enterprises, as is the usual pro-
cedure among business men who are
business friends. But we never were In
any business partnership at any time
and / defy Armstrong TO prove other
wise.
His suit against me is for half the
profits of my ventures in the Garden.
He charges that / agreed that he was
to be a partner of mine, and that when
the lease was signed / declared him
out after he $50 he claims) had assisted
me in getting the lease. That Is un-
true. got the lease. Armstrong had
nothing whatsoever TO do with conclud-
ing the deal.
Got No Baclcrs.
when first started negotiations for
the Garden lease. Armstrong, hearing
about it, came to me and said he
thought he could help me. l welcomed
his help, assuming that he meant to
help me as one friend helps another.
He told me that he could get some OF
his friends to back the venture, but
they never materialized
when found that Armstrong, with
all the influence he professed to have,
could do nothing for me / went ahead
with my own ideas and plans about
getting the lease. / did get the lease
and concluded the deal without help
from Armstrong. Then John Ringing
became an associate of mine. We went
ahead and operated the Garden accord
ing to ideas which I had. Our vent
ure was n success from the start and