The spark: first email (4th October 2011) posted by Vincent Pousson on Facebook followed by a post on Jacques Berthomeau's blog
(Obtaining and translating these emails would not have been possible without the assistance of Harold Heckle.)
‘Murcia – €30,000 just for a two and half hour conference and masterclass!?’
Series of emails sent within Murcia during October 2011: a month of getting ready for Jay Miller’s visit
(Due to length we have split this article into two – the actual emails can be seen here)
(Due to length we have split this article into two – the actual emails can be seen here)
These emails expose the confabulation of ‘official’ and ‘free-lance’ that has been used by Pancho Campo MW, with Jay Miller as an apparently willing party, to give visits to regions like Murcia and Valencia a veneer of respectability.
They show a cash-strapped region trying to find an equitable way of spreading the charge of €30,000 being levied by Campo and the Wine Academy of Spain amongst its members.
They expose as threadbare the defence offered by Campo on 9th December 2011. Far from being just one email, as Campo claims, this is a series of emails exchanged between the regional government in Murcia, the three DOs (Bullas Jumilla and Yecla) and Asevin. It is very clear that the bodegas are being charged both for having their wines rated and assessed by Jay Miller for The Wine Advocate/erobertparker and for the opportunity to have their wines included in the masterclass as well as a possible visit to their bodega.
As this was an official Wine Advocate visit the expenses incurred during the visit to Murcia should have been covered by The Wine Advocate as Campo acknowledges in his December 5th statement:
‘Before TWAS began collaborating with The Wine Advocate, TWAS made clear to its staff that according to Robert Parker’s rules, wineries could not pay for expenses or fees for visiting them nor for Jay Miller tasting their wines on behanlf od (sic) The Wine Advocate. All the expenses were paid at all times by The Wine Advocate.’
The emails, which run from 4th October 2011 to the last week of October, show that the organization and the charging of bodegas for samples sent in for Jay Miller to taste and visits by Miller was discussed at a high level within Spain’s regional government. The email sent by Juan Antonio Ruiz Jiménez on 4th October 2011, which was published on Facebook 26th October), is the beginning of a pattern and not a one-off. Nor was he acting as a maverick as has been suggested. These emails are at variance with the explanation provided by Campo.
These seven emails relate to the organization during October of the visit by Jay Miller and Pancho Campo MW to Murcia (24th-26th November 2011). Some of these have already appeared on Jim’s Loire (29,000 € for a two and a half day visit to Murcia: 24th-26th November 2011: http://jimsloire.blogspot.com/2011/11/29000-for-two-and-half-day-visit-to.html
Brief details of the emails – the full versions are on a separate post.
They show a cash-strapped region trying to find an equitable way of spreading the charge of €30,000 being levied by Campo and the Wine Academy of Spain amongst its members.
They expose as threadbare the defence offered by Campo on 9th December 2011. Far from being just one email, as Campo claims, this is a series of emails exchanged between the regional government in Murcia, the three DOs (Bullas Jumilla and Yecla) and Asevin. It is very clear that the bodegas are being charged both for having their wines rated and assessed by Jay Miller for The Wine Advocate/erobertparker and for the opportunity to have their wines included in the masterclass as well as a possible visit to their bodega.
As this was an official Wine Advocate visit the expenses incurred during the visit to Murcia should have been covered by The Wine Advocate as Campo acknowledges in his December 5th statement:
‘Before TWAS began collaborating with The Wine Advocate, TWAS made clear to its staff that according to Robert Parker’s rules, wineries could not pay for expenses or fees for visiting them nor for Jay Miller tasting their wines on behanlf od (sic) The Wine Advocate. All the expenses were paid at all times by The Wine Advocate.’
The emails, which run from 4th October 2011 to the last week of October, show that the organization and the charging of bodegas for samples sent in for Jay Miller to taste and visits by Miller was discussed at a high level within Spain’s regional government. The email sent by Juan Antonio Ruiz Jiménez on 4th October 2011, which was published on Facebook 26th October), is the beginning of a pattern and not a one-off. Nor was he acting as a maverick as has been suggested. These emails are at variance with the explanation provided by Campo.
These seven emails relate to the organization during October of the visit by Jay Miller and Pancho Campo MW to Murcia (24th-26th November 2011). Some of these have already appeared on Jim’s Loire (29,000 € for a two and a half day visit to Murcia: 24th-26th November 2011: http://jimsloire.blogspot.com/2011/11/29000-for-two-and-half-day-visit-to.html
Brief details of the emails – the full versions are on a separate post.
Email One: Tuesday 4 October 2011 6.38pm
From: Juan Antonio Ruiz Jiménez (secretary of Asevin – private company promoting the exportation of wines from the region)
To: some 40+ bodegas
This is the one posted on Facebook by Vincent Pousson: 26th October 2011 and sets out the now famous tariff.
To: some 40+ bodegas
This is the one posted on Facebook by Vincent Pousson: 26th October 2011 and sets out the now famous tariff.
Email Two: Wednesday 5 October 2011
From: Juan Antonio Ruiz Jiménez
To: some 40+ bodegas
This is an important email as it establishes that Miller’s visit to Murcia was an official Wine Advocate visit. Jiménez explains that only wines rated by Miller with 85 points or more will appear in the publication.
This directly contradicts Jiménez’s statement sent to me on 1st November 2011 – a statement that bears all the hallmarks of being composed by Campo.
‘the visit to Jumilla was not included in the official programme of The Wine Advocate, which will take place at the end of November. Therefore, ASEVIN asked TWA to make it possible for Jay Miller to visit Jumilla (Murcia) to offer his opinion on this region’s wines.’
Jiménez’s statement is here (http://jimsloire.blogspot.com/2011/11/jay-miller-pancho-campo-wine-academy.html)
Jiménez does stress that Jay Miller SOLO cobra por la Cata Magistral that is to say Jay Miller only charges for the two and a half hour conference and masterclass
This directly contradicts Jiménez’s statement sent to me on 1st November 2011 – a statement that bears all the hallmarks of being composed by Campo.
‘the visit to Jumilla was not included in the official programme of The Wine Advocate, which will take place at the end of November. Therefore, ASEVIN asked TWA to make it possible for Jay Miller to visit Jumilla (Murcia) to offer his opinion on this region’s wines.’
Jiménez’s statement is here (http://jimsloire.blogspot.com/2011/11/jay-miller-pancho-campo-wine-academy.html)
Jiménez does stress that Jay Miller SOLO cobra por la Cata Magistral that is to say Jay Miller only charges for the two and a half hour conference and masterclass
Email Three: Monday 10 October 2011
Message from Maria Teresa Torres (technical Manager
General Directorate of Agricultural Training and Agribusiness
Ministry of Agriculture and Water) announcing a meeting on Friday 14th October 2011 starting at 13.00 to discuss the proposed visit by Jay Miller to Murcia.
General Directorate of Agricultural Training and Agribusiness
Ministry of Agriculture and Water) announcing a meeting on Friday 14th October 2011 starting at 13.00 to discuss the proposed visit by Jay Miller to Murcia.
Email Four: Monday 10 October 2011 14.32
From: DO Jumilla
To: those invited to meeting called by Torres on 14th October 2011.
DO Jumilla forwards email from Maria Teresa Torres (Email Three) to various producers and others invited to the meeting called by Torres.
Email Five: Friday 14 October 5.35 pm
From: Juan Antonio Ruiz Jiménez
To: some 40+ bodegas
Sent after the end of the meeting called by Maria Teresa Torres for 13.00 Friday 14th.
The price of submitting samples has firmed up – €300 compared to €200-300. Price of visit to a bodega doubled from €1000 to €2000. We assume that this reflects decisions made at the Torres meeting.
Email Six: Monday 17 October 10.48
From: Juan Antonio Ruiz Jiménez
To: some 40+ bodegas
JAR Jiménez sends out draft programme for Jay Miller and Pancho Campo MW’s visit 24th-26th November out to the bodegas.
Includes two sessions of tasting samples – 25th and 26th, five visits to bodegas plus conference and masterclass.
Email Seven: last week of October 2011*
From: Juan Antonio Ruiz Jiménez
To: ???
Subject: RE: VISITA DE JAY MILLER
Email sent to a participating bodega asking for money to be paid into bank account – details given. Payment was in advance and we understand that no money paid out by the bodegas for samples and/or a visit from Miller has so far been returned to them.
Pancho Campo MW’s comments on Asevin and the visit to Murcia.
From the statement issued by The Wine Academy of Spain 9th December 2011:
‘8. ASEVIN
a. One of the wineries that provided one of the wines for the master class and tasting at FENAVIN also owns a property in Murcia.
b. In view of the success of the event managed by TWAS the winery in question requested from TWAS to organize something similar in Jumilla.
c. Again, our commercial department submitted a proposal, which was accepted by ASEVIN. ASEVIN is a non-profit association that gathers the wines professionals of Murcia.
d. In the contract* signed by ASEVIN it is clearly stated that they could not ask wineries to pay for the event, for wines to be tasted at the master class or for possible visits if Jay Miller decided to include a few winery visits during his trip.
e. Before Jay Miller had agreed to the proposed event and contracts were signed, ASEVIN sent out an email trying to raise the money from the wineries, contrary to the stipulations clearly detailed in the proposed agreement. At that point TWAS put the event on hold until the wineries were informed that they could not be asked for any kind of payment for possible visits and for submitting samples.’
* ‘Contract’ was signed on 11th November 2011 long after this series of emails and well after the scandal broke. Signed by only one party – Asevin – with no indication where it was signed.
a. One of the wineries that provided one of the wines for the master class and tasting at FENAVIN also owns a property in Murcia.
b. In view of the success of the event managed by TWAS the winery in question requested from TWAS to organize something similar in Jumilla.
c. Again, our commercial department submitted a proposal, which was accepted by ASEVIN. ASEVIN is a non-profit association that gathers the wines professionals of Murcia.
d. In the contract* signed by ASEVIN it is clearly stated that they could not ask wineries to pay for the event, for wines to be tasted at the master class or for possible visits if Jay Miller decided to include a few winery visits during his trip.
e. Before Jay Miller had agreed to the proposed event and contracts were signed, ASEVIN sent out an email trying to raise the money from the wineries, contrary to the stipulations clearly detailed in the proposed agreement. At that point TWAS put the event on hold until the wineries were informed that they could not be asked for any kind of payment for possible visits and for submitting samples.’
* ‘Contract’ was signed on 11th November 2011 long after this series of emails and well after the scandal broke. Signed by only one party – Asevin – with no indication where it was signed.
Our comments:
It is not clear who set the sample and visits tariff – was it The Wine Academy of Spain or the various wine bodies in Murcia? Our best guess remains that the Wine Academy of Spain set the overall price (€29,000-30,000) and Murcia then worked out how to most equitably cover the costs). However, we note that the price (€500) here in Murcia for putting forward a wine for the master class tasting was the same as that charged to bodegas in Valencia.
Miller was to spend part of the mornings of the 25th and 26th tasting samples for The Wine Advocate that had been submitted under the Wine Advocate criteria cited by Maria Teresa Torres in her email of 10th October. It is surely evident that bodegas were prepared to pay to send in samples and for visits on the understanding that Miller’s visit was official and that their wines would be assessed and rated for The Wine Advocate. One cannot imagine that they were prepared to pay €30,000 just for a two and half hour conference/masterclass.
It is also difficult to imagine the producers wanting to pay €30,000 for Campo’s informed views on the Chinese market in the light of having CavesMaître, who have grabbed Castel’s trademark in China, as a major sponsor of WineFuture Hong Kong.
We note that Campo does not indicate in his December 9th statement whether the visit to Murcia by Miller was ‘official’ or ‘free-lance’.
The crucial question is would this proposed visit by Jay Miller and Pancho Campo MW have gone ahead if Murcia had declined the offer of a conference and masterclass? A question of No pay No Jay.
Or would Campo have said “I quite understand that in these economic circumstances you can’t afford our fees, so no conference/masterclass. However, Jay Miller will be there tasting wines for The Wine Advocate and will also visit some wineries”?
Miller was to spend part of the mornings of the 25th and 26th tasting samples for The Wine Advocate that had been submitted under the Wine Advocate criteria cited by Maria Teresa Torres in her email of 10th October. It is surely evident that bodegas were prepared to pay to send in samples and for visits on the understanding that Miller’s visit was official and that their wines would be assessed and rated for The Wine Advocate. One cannot imagine that they were prepared to pay €30,000 just for a two and half hour conference/masterclass.
It is also difficult to imagine the producers wanting to pay €30,000 for Campo’s informed views on the Chinese market in the light of having CavesMaître, who have grabbed Castel’s trademark in China, as a major sponsor of WineFuture Hong Kong.
We note that Campo does not indicate in his December 9th statement whether the visit to Murcia by Miller was ‘official’ or ‘free-lance’.
The crucial question is would this proposed visit by Jay Miller and Pancho Campo MW have gone ahead if Murcia had declined the offer of a conference and masterclass? A question of No pay No Jay.
Or would Campo have said “I quite understand that in these economic circumstances you can’t afford our fees, so no conference/masterclass. However, Jay Miller will be there tasting wines for The Wine Advocate and will also visit some wineries”?
