Rock of Gibraltar

lem8sh said:
Jesus Christ you just can't take any criticism of Fergie can you?
The bolded part makes no sense whatsoever. What do you mean offer more?
Click to expand...

I am just making sure everyone understands that this is all speculation on your part based on various books, articles etc.

And what I meant is, if Fergie was only entitled to 50% earnings, then why did Coolmore offer 2 nominations and then even double the offer to 4 nominations after he complained (and that is assuming that was even what happened anyway)?


Decotron said:
No offense Rood but its pretty obvious Fergie was well out of order in this instance.
Click to expand...

Well I actually think it was a big mistake by Fergie to take things to court because the club suffered due to the fall out - thankfully he eventually realised it and settled before things got too far out of hand.
 
Rood said:
I am just making sure everyone understands that this is all speculation on your part based on various books, articles etc.

And what I meant is, if Fergie was only entitled to 50% earnings, then why did Coolmore offer 2 nominations and then even double the offer to 4 nominations after he complained (and that is assuming that was even what happened anyway)?




Well I actually think it was a big mistake by Fergie to take things to court because the club suffered due to the fall out - thankfully he eventually realised it and settled before things got too far out of hand.
Click to expand...


The nominations offered were earnings through stud fees. Fergie was only entitled to 50% of racetrack earnings. Two very very different things. By right he should have been entitled to absolutely no stud earnings. He tried to bully them and met his match.
 
lem8sh said:
The nominations offered were earnings through stud fees. Fergie was only entitled to 50% of racetrack earnings. Two very very different things. By right he should have been entitled to absolutely no stud earnings. He tried to bully them and met his match.
Click to expand...

Read somewhere that a young Michael Owen was offered a similar deal by Coolmore. He reckons they made it quite clear to his agent that the only money in it for him was earnings from the track.
 
lem8sh said:
The nominations offered were earnings through stud fees. Fergie was only entitled to 50% of racetrack earnings. Two very very different things. By right he should have been entitled to absolutely no stud earnings. He tried to bully them and met his match.
Click to expand...

Ye I understand all that, which is why I have twice asked you to explain why Coolmore would offer 2 and then even 4 nominations if Fergie was not entitled to any? How do you explain that?
 
Rood said:
Ye I understand all that, which is why I have twice asked you to explain why Coolmore would offer 2 and then even 4 nominations if Fergie was not entitled to any? How do you explain that?
Click to expand...

Sorry to butt in, but wasn't the offer made to settle the litigation, not because Coolmore accepted his entitlement?
 
Moriarty said:
Sorry to butt in, but wasn't the offer made to settle the litigation, not because Coolmore accepted his entitlement?
Click to expand...

Ive no idea TBH - Im just asking the questions as lem8sh seems to know the private details of everything that went on!

regardless of the rights and wrongs of it all, it was a mistake for Fergie to take it that far and it all should have been sorted out in private
 
Rood said:
Ye I understand all that, which is why I have twice asked you to explain why Coolmore would offer 2 and then even 4 nominations if Fergie was not entitled to any? How do you explain that?
Click to expand...


The 2 stud nominations was a gift, a goodwill gesture the same as the stake in the horses racetrack career was a gift. When ROG retired Fergie refused the 2 stud nominations a year and was kicking up stink saying he was entitled to 50% stud fees as well.
Fergies demands slowly lowered until he was looking for 20%, then 15%. Magnier and particularly JP are extremely media shy and this limelight was not in their interest so they went back to Fergie and offered him 4 stud nominations a year. He refused again and proceeded with court proceedings.

This horse had been bred by Magnier at his Coolmore stud by his stallions and broodmares, for Fergie to want 50% stud rights of that animal, an animal in which he had invested not one pence whether in the breeding, training process etc was ill advised and misunderstood.
 
Moriarty said:
Sorry to butt in, but wasn't the offer made to settle the litigation, not because Coolmore accepted his entitlement?
Click to expand...

But if it was as clear cut as is being made out that Fergie had no entitlement whatsoever, why on earth would they settle (and for a good amount of money too)? Because they are extremely media shy? C'mon...
 
Sir A1ex said:
But if it was as clear cut as is being made out that Fergie had no entitlement whatsoever, why on earth would they settle (and for a good amount of money too)? Because they are extremely media shy? C'mon...
Click to expand...

It was peanuts to them and peanuts within reference to the stud value of ROG.
 
Sir A1ex said:
It was £2.5m - you don't become a very rich business person by giving away £2.5m for shits and giggles.
Click to expand...

It wasn't for shits and giggles, Fergie lost out in millions and would have been better off accepting the 4 stud nomimations per annum that they offered. JP and Magnier came out laughing.
 
Sounds like Fergie did very well out of it then? £2.5m because some racehourse owners are media shy. Bargain!
 
Sir A1ex said:
It was £2.5m - you don't become a very rich business person by giving away £2.5m for shits and giggles.
Click to expand...


I doubt they enjoyed a very public row with someone like SAF. It was a gesture of goodwill to try and stop things getting even more messy and offer SAF a chance to save some face.
 
From his book that came out today:

Writing in 'Alex Ferguson, My Biography' which was published on Tuesday, the now-retired manager claims to be on good terms with Magnier following the row and subsequent legal battle over his involvement in the champion racehorse who retired in 2002 with future stud fees estimated at £100 million.

Sporting Ferguson's red-and-white silks, Rock Of Gibraltar became the first in the northern hemisphere to win seven consecutive Group 1 races, surpassing a record set by Mill Reef.

Ferguson writes: "My understanding was that I had a half share in the ownership of the horse; theirs was that I would be entitled to half the prize money. But it was resolved.
"The matter was closed when we reached a settlement agreeing that there had been a misunderstanding on both sides."

In his autobiography, Ferguson notes one "awkward" situation arising from the episode when urged at a Manchester United AGM to resign over the affair at a time when Magnier was a sizeable shareholder in the club along with JP McManus.

He writes: "I have to say that at no point was I sidetracked from my duties as manager of Manchester United. It didn't affect my love of racing and I am on good terms now with John Magnier, the leading figure at Coolmore."
 
Sir A1ex said:
But if it was as clear cut as is being made out that Fergie had no entitlement whatsoever, why on earth would they settle (and for a good amount of money too)? Because they are extremely media shy? C'mon...
Click to expand...

Nothing unusual about making a settlement offer in civil litigation. Happens every day in my practice. Some are generous, and some are utterly without merit. To my way of thinking, Coolmore made a business decision, weighing the costs of litigation (and all the attendant publicity) against the cost of settlement.
 
lem8sh said:
It wasn't for shits and giggles, Fergie lost out in millions and would have been better off accepting the 4 stud nomimations per annum that they offered. JP and Magnier came out laughing.
Click to expand...

Sorry, none of this makes any sense. How were they laughing at having to give some double-crossing git who tried to take a load of money off them £2.5m. I'd be fuming if I had to give him a penny in their situation.

He was owed absolutely nothing, but claimed a load of money anyway. They said "sorry about that, you've msinderstood" and offered him 4 stud nomimations to soften the blow, being mates 'n all. At this point he told them to feck off with their stud nomimations and started a law suit against them, to which their reaction was... to give him £2.5m as a gesture of goodwill?

Doesn't wash, anybody in their situation would tell teh ungrateful bastard to get fecked at this point, not give him a load of cash so he could "save face".

Surely the mush more plausible exlpanation is that it wasn't nearly as black and white as you say, and while M&M may have essentially been right, there were enough grey areas and lose ends to make it worth avoiding a costly legal battle? Apart from anything else, if it was as clear cut as you say, what lawyer would have progressed the case with Fergie? He obviously had the basis of some sort of case.
 
Sir A1ex said:
Sorry, none of this makes any sense. How were they laughing at having to give some double-crossing git who tried to take a load of money off them £2.5m. I'd be fuming if I had to give him a penny in their situation.

He was owed absolutely nothing, but claimed a load of money anyway. They said "sorry about that, you've msinderstood" and offered him 4 stud nomimations to soften the blow, being mates 'n all. At this point he told them to feck off with their stud nomimations and started a law suit against them, to which their reaction was... to give him £2.5m as a gesture of goodwill?

Doesn't wash, anybody in their situation would tell teh ungrateful bastard to get fecked at this point, not give him a load of cash so he could "save face".

Surely the mush more plausible exlpanation is that it wasn't nearly as black and white as you say, and while M&M may have essentially been right, there were enough grey areas and lose ends to make it worth avoiding a costly legal battle? Apart from anything else, if it was as clear cut as you say, what lawyer would have progressed the case with Fergie? He obviously had the basis of some sort of case.
Click to expand...

Read Moriartys comment above. That's it in a nutshell. The horse was worth £100m, £2.5m to stop the litigation, the media spotlight and to end the public row with Ferguson. Well worth it. Like I said he should have taken the 2 stud nominations he was offered nevermind the 4 he was later offered.
 
Moriarty said:
Nothing unusual about making a settlement offer in civil litigation. Happens every day in my practice. Some are generous, and some are utterly without merit. To my way of thinking, Coolmore made a business decision, weighing the costs of litigation (and all the attendant publicity) against the cost of settlement.
Click to expand...

All true, other than "utterly without merit" (unless your talking genuine peanuts). Paying off a case you were pretty sure to win anyway is normal engouh, If Fergie had no case whatsoever (to the extent that a layman can sum it up in a couple of lines on an internet forum) there would be no genuine threat of litigation.
 
Sir A1ex said:
All true, other than "utterly without merit" (unless your talking genuine peanuts). Paying off a case you were pretty sure to win anyway is normal engouh, If Fergie had no case whatsoever (to the extent that a layman can sum it up in a couple of lines on an internet forum) there would be no genuine threat of litigation.
Click to expand...

Yep, I mean peanuts. I've has hardball defence lawyers offer a mere fraction of the value of the claim. Of course, it's all fact-dependent but it's not uncommon for defendants, especially insurance companies, to offer a small settlement knowing that the plaintiff is poor and needs money.

Fergie did have a case. He wouldn't have sued if he, and his lawyers, didn't think he had a leg to stand on. It isn't a step someone in his position would have taken lightly and there would have been negotiations with Coolmore long before the suit was filed.
 
Sir A1ex said:
All true, other than "utterly without merit" (unless your talking genuine peanuts). Paying off a case you were pretty sure to win anyway is normal engouh, If Fergie had no case whatsoever (to the extent that a layman can sum it up in a couple of lines on an internet forum) there would be no genuine threat of litigation.
Click to expand...

£2.5m is feck all compared to the cost (both tangible and intangible) of a big, drawn out shit slinging fight with Fergie. Especially since they were prepared to offer him 2 (or 4) stud nominations which the probably knew would amount to more than £2.5 million anyway. Initially they were probably being generous but when Fergie kicked up a stink it was likely a case of "Oh just give him some money to feck off and leave us alone."
 
lem8sh said:
He lost out in millions and was made to look a fool.
Click to expand...

I'd happily look a fool for a £2.5m payout !

also strange that on one hand you say that Fergie was not due anything, yet on the other you say he lost out on millions - either way he seems to have got nearly 4 million quid according to you

you also seem to take this very personally - are you connected to this story in some way?
 
Rood said:
I'd happily look a fool for a £2.5m payout !

also strange that on one hand you say that Fergie was not due anything, yet on the other you say he lost out on millions

you also seem to take this very personally - are you connected to this story in some way?
Click to expand...


He was offered 2 and then 4 nominations sure. So he did lose out. If you read the article posted above, the stud value was £100m.
 
Rood said:
I'd happily look a fool for a £2.5m payout !

also strange that on one hand you say that Fergie was not due anything, yet on the other you say he lost out on millions - either way he seems to have got nearly 4 million quid according to you

you also seem to take this very personally - are you connected to this story in some way?
Click to expand...

Are you feeling ok?
 
Sir A1ex said:
Surely the mush more plausible exlpanation is that it wasn't nearly as black and white as you say, and while M&M may have essentially been right, there were enough grey areas and lose ends to make it worth avoiding a costly legal battle? Apart from anything else, if it was as clear cut as you say, what lawyer would have progressed the case with Fergie? He obviously had the basis of some sort of case.
Click to expand...

Sounds about right to me
 
lem8sh said:
He was offered 2 and then 4 nominations sure. So he did lose out. If you read the article posted above, the stud value was £100m.
Click to expand...

Well if he wasnt due anything and got £2.5m then it doesnt sound like losing out to me.

Interesting to hear that Fergie says he is on good terms with Magnier nowadays
 
£2.5m is nothing to those sorts of people. They'd have made that sort of offer as a matter of course (not to mention that Coolmore would likely have been indemnified to some extent by their insurers). It doesn't imply guilt, it doesn't imply anything beyond some lawyers saying to them that if they go to court there's a chance they might lose. Settling the case allowed them to dispose of something that might have dragged on for years and probably, going on the way it's been written, came with a confidentiality clause to protect both sides.
 
Brophs said:
£2.5m is nothing to those sorts of people. They'd have made that sort of offer as a matter of course (not to mention that Coolmore would likely have been indemnified to some extent by their insurers). It doesn't imply guilt, it doesn't imply anything beyond some lawyers saying to them that if they go to court there's a chance they might lose. Settling the case allowed them to dispose of something that might have dragged on for years and probably, going on the way it's been written, came with a confidentiality clause to protect both sides.
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree with that, it is a huge sum regardless of who you are - but your general point makes sense.
 
Sir A1ex said:
Exactly. So not as clear cut as Lem8sh is determined to portray it.
Click to expand...

Of course it's not cut and dried. As a curiosity at the time, I researched some equine law (boring cnut, I know) and there isn't a massive amount of case law in the area and what there is basically seems to have been decided on particular facts, rather than on a purely legal basis. That said, having read what the experts from either side have said, I felt the Coolmore side of the argument was much, much more persuasive. Theirs seemed to be more in keeping with common practice.

But all that being said, lawyers would have told them to settle because that's what they do. They weigh the risks and the potential exposure and see if the price is something the client can stomach. Neither side wanted to be in a position where they could be cross-examined (which is a free-for-all) . I was just surprised it took so long for them to agree something.
 
Rood said:
Not sure I agree with that, it is a huge sum regardless of who you are - but your general point makes sense.
Click to expand...

It's all relative. In an organisation as large as theirs it's the cost of doing business. It would have been the point of principle rather than the money that caused them to lose sleep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.