Rock of Gibraltar

Sir A1ex said:
Why do you keep bringing that up? Fergie didn't lose out on £100m, or 50% of £100m or any other amount. He wasn't due a penny. But he ended up with £2.5m, making him look a fool.
Click to expand...


The stud value is of huge importance for feck sake. What do you mean he wasn't due a penny?

The gift of nominal ownership given to Fergie before the horse ran in the Dewhurst entitled Fergie 50% of racetrack earnings and 1 stud nomination per annum in Ireland and 1 per annum in Australia. He rejected the 2 stud nominations per annum and also rejected the later offer of 4 stud nominations per year. In the end he settled for £2.5m which was millions less than he would have made had he taken the original offer(s)

"why do you keep bringing that up" feck me
 
Brophs said:
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.
Click to expand...

Right, that seems a much more convincing account than

lem8sh said:
He was never going to get 50% stud fees it was laughable and subsequently would have been laughed out in court.
Click to expand...
 
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...


There was 0% chance of them losing. Fergie looking for 50% of stud earnings was laughable to put it mildly.
 
Sir A1ex said:
Right, that seems a much more convincing account than
Click to expand...


So you think he would have won 50% of the stud earnings in court? A horse that Magnier bred from his own stock in his own stable and a horse that Fergie hadn't invested one penny in whether it be in the breeding process, training fees etc. Ok.
 
lem8sh said:
So you think he would have won 50% of the stud earnings in court? A horse that Magnier bred from his own stock in his own stable and a horse that Fergie hadn't invested one penny in whether it be in the breeding process, training fees etc. Ok.
Click to expand...

I don't have a clue what he might have come out of a court case with, nor does anybody involved know for certain (apart from you it seems). But if there was a 0% chance of him getting anything, then M&M were fecking stupid to give him £2.5m.

My guess is that £2.5m was a reasonable estimate of what Fergie was likely to end up with, taking probability into account. That'd be why both parties settled on that figure.
 
lem8sh said:
There was 0% chance of them losing. Fergie looking for 50% of stud earnings was laughable to put it mildly.
Click to expand...

lem8sh said:
So you think he would have won 50% of the stud earnings in court? A horse that Magnier bred from his own stock in his own stable and a horse that Fergie hadn't invested one penny in whether it be in the breeding process, training fees etc. Ok.
Click to expand...
Of course there's a chance of 'losing', whatever that's taken to mean. Fergie might not have gotten 50%. He might have gotten less, or even more, if the court felt that was appropriate. That's not really the point. It's a pragmatic exercise designed to cover your arse.

For what it's worth, I reckon his chances of getting 50% of the stud fees were slim. But at £2.5m I'd have been telling them to bite their arms off and move on and forget about it.
 
Brophs said:
Of course there's a chance of 'losing', whatever that's taken to mean. Fergie might not have gotten 50%. He might have gotten less, or even more, if the court felt that was appropriate. That's not really the point. It's a pragmatic exercise designed to cover your arse.

For what it's worth, I reckon his chances of getting 50% of the stud fees were slim. But at £2.5m I'd have been telling them to bite their arms off and move on and forget about it.
Click to expand...


Agreed. Good deal for the 2 boys. In hindsight not so good for Fergie but free money is free money.
 
It's been a long time since Rock and Roll ... I have often wondered what really happened. After reading as much as I could, I scripted a lengthy (3-4000 word) piece which tries to untangle the whole history, Edwards, ROG, to Woodward. It is a story which is key, in my opinion, to where we are now with the club. I am going to post this account in a series of short posts here (if no one in authority @Niall @Damien has objection). I will link each factual element to published reports of the time. I welcome correction, additions, opinions. It is written from the perspective of a fan, who saw George Best on TV, who adored Cantona, etc. It will, for me, at least, lay out the amazing story of how we got from Matt Busby, manager, to Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, interim manager.
 
SAF wasn't given 50% shares in Rock of Gibraltar, he was gifted the back end of a horse, think about that for a minute....

And when the Irish mob sold their shares they were available for anybody to buy, they didn't out of badness post them in an envelope first-class to the Glazer's in Florida, where were the Right Knights or whatever the feck they were called then ?
 
It's common for horses to be leased, lent or sold into 'ownership' without the stud rights being included

For those who don't follow racing, Coolmore are the most powerful stable in the world and didn't just strike it lucky with a horse they gave away never expecting it to be any good. They have an army of stallions and stallions of stallions and carefully plot bloodlines years in advance
 
Sir A1ex said:
Pretty much as I understand it, though I'd say it's a pretty small minority that use it to blame Fergie for the Glazers.
Click to expand...

Well I'm not so sure about that - there was a long thread in the summer discussing Sir Alex's mistakes and this was discussed then. The Rock of Gibraltar and the issue I mention below:

Sixpence said:
Fergie made a mistake in accepting their out of court settlement before the stud fees started coming in. He missed out on millions from it. But it was all overshadowing the team so it had to end.
Click to expand...

I have often wondered if this is one of the reasons he has clung onto a paid role at Man United, to this day, in fact. He also acts as a buffer between the Glazers and the fans and I have read on other parts of this site the accusation that his not inconsiderable wage is basically 'hush money' for not speaking out against them.
 
OP is way too generous. Fergie was given an extremely lavish gift he made a lot of money from without doing anything and then demanded to be entitled to some horse cum on top of it… even if he’d had some spurious legal claim to it, it was a bit of a dick move, and pretty much everyone in the racing community thought so.

The whole thing was completely needless bullshit.
 
Last edited:
Tigersam said:
I have often wondered if this is one of the reasons he has clung onto a paid role at Man United, to this day, in fact. He also acts as a buffer between the Glazers and the fans and I have read on other parts of this site the accusation that his not inconsiderable wage is basically 'hush money' for not speaking out against them.
Click to expand...
If Phil Jones gets paid a kings ransom for nothing, Fergie is quids in here
 
Mockney said:
OP is way too generous. Fergie was given an extremely lavish gift he made a lot of money from without doing anything and then demanded to be entitled to some horse cum on top of it… even if he’d had some spurious legal claim to it, it was a bit of a dick move, and pretty much everyone in the racing community thought so.

The whole thing was completely needless bullshit.
Click to expand...
Nails it. It was a stupid move from Fergie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.