Fergie's folly in picking on wrong man
Dispute over Rock Of Gibraltar speaks volumes about terse manager, says Will Buckley
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/sport/story/0,6903,1041742,00.html
Now that the nation's penalty-taker, and a man who, says his amanuensis Tom Watt (aka Lofty from EastEnders ), 'is fantastic at talking on the telephone', has so quietly and unassumingly taken his diverse gifts to Madrid, Sir Alex Ferguson has been searching for another multimillionaire to have a fight with. He has not chosen wisely.
Ever since we were told that Ferguson owned a share in Rock Of Gibraltar there has been speculation as to the size of the share he owned. When people who knew were asked about it they were vague. It would be wrong to say he definitely owned half the horse, but it would be correct to say he was a co-owner and, sure enough, there was Ferguson listed as a co-owner in the programmes. Alongside the name of Mrs John Magnier.
Which was something of a clue. Co-ownership is a broad concept. I could pay for the hoof of a race horse and parade myself as co-owner, should I be so lacking in self-esteem, and while technically my boast would be valid I would only ever be entitled to a hoof's percentage of the prize-money or stud fees.
Ferguson, it was reported last week, may not even have a hoof to stand on. Far from paying over £100,000 for a half share in the horse, Magnier says it was a gift. Sources, one assumes close to Mr John Magnier, have said that racing's grandest of fromages allowed Sir Alex to race Rock Of Gibraltar in his own colours and be registered as part-owner. He was further gifted 5 per cent of the horse's winnings or one stud nomination per annum.
The terms of this gift were never made explicit because it was in no one's interests to do so. Ferguson enjoyed his days at the races to such an extent that he would smile without being prompted. The association between the only horse to win seven Group One races in a row and the only man to win eight Premiership titles benefited both parties. It was also beneficial to the Coolmore set in terms of publicity and putting across the general aura that it was a group exclusively for winners.
The problems started when the horse achieved near mythical status and Ferguson seems to have had difficulty facing up to the realities of his situation. There was never any confusion at Coolmore. To adopt a golfing maxim: they race for show and breed for dough. Winning Derbys keeps their women and associates happy but the real value of these triumphs kicks in later when you can charge up to £100,000 a nomination over and over again. A horse can win the Derby only once, it can go on breeding 200 times a year for 20 years.
There's glamour in the former, gold in the latter, and it's best to keep the operations separate. This has been the Coolmore way of doing things since Magnier went to Kentucky to purchase yearlings for the first time in 1975 saying: 'We are going to buy baby stallions. I have zero interest in anything which might easily win a big race if I do not think he will make a breeding stallion.'
By gifting an interest in a horse to an associate they retain complete control over it. There is nothing in writing to suggest otherwise and it is unlikely that any court in the land is going to believe that after a day in Ferguson's company Magnier turned to JP McManus and said: 'That Scottish fella seems an engaging chap let's lob him five million pounds' worth of horse.'
This makes Ferguson's desire to take them on all the more bewildering. Perhaps he believed the hype and, having seen so many pictures of him and the horse together, convinced himself it must be at least half his. Perhaps he was infuriated when it dawned on him that Coolmore saw him as useful PR rather than an equal. Perhaps, having been given something for a period of time, he cannot let it go. Whatever, a man conditioned to standing up to everyone has picked a fight with the wrong man on the wrong ground.
Nor is Magnier the only multimillionaire Ferguson may have fallen out with. By revealing that Roman Abramovich approached him he may have alienated the only football chairman with the clout to put pressure on the Manchester United board. Pressure Ferguson might have used to engineer a huge salary rise in his next contract. And the kind of pressure that has already seen Peter Kenyon leave United for Chelsea.
This move was rightly described by columnists as being of no account to football fans. It did, however, have an effect on Manchester United's share price, which dipped sharply because stockmarket players are more interested in the identity of the managing executive than that of the manager. Manchester United, unlike Chelsea, are owned by their shareholders. And the two men with the biggest stake in the club, owning an 11.5 per cent share, are Magnier and McManus. All in all, Ferguson would have been better off picking a fight with the multimillionaire Roy Keane.
Dispute over Rock Of Gibraltar speaks volumes about terse manager, says Will Buckley
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/sport/story/0,6903,1041742,00.html
Now that the nation's penalty-taker, and a man who, says his amanuensis Tom Watt (aka Lofty from EastEnders ), 'is fantastic at talking on the telephone', has so quietly and unassumingly taken his diverse gifts to Madrid, Sir Alex Ferguson has been searching for another multimillionaire to have a fight with. He has not chosen wisely.
Ever since we were told that Ferguson owned a share in Rock Of Gibraltar there has been speculation as to the size of the share he owned. When people who knew were asked about it they were vague. It would be wrong to say he definitely owned half the horse, but it would be correct to say he was a co-owner and, sure enough, there was Ferguson listed as a co-owner in the programmes. Alongside the name of Mrs John Magnier.
Which was something of a clue. Co-ownership is a broad concept. I could pay for the hoof of a race horse and parade myself as co-owner, should I be so lacking in self-esteem, and while technically my boast would be valid I would only ever be entitled to a hoof's percentage of the prize-money or stud fees.
Ferguson, it was reported last week, may not even have a hoof to stand on. Far from paying over £100,000 for a half share in the horse, Magnier says it was a gift. Sources, one assumes close to Mr John Magnier, have said that racing's grandest of fromages allowed Sir Alex to race Rock Of Gibraltar in his own colours and be registered as part-owner. He was further gifted 5 per cent of the horse's winnings or one stud nomination per annum.
The terms of this gift were never made explicit because it was in no one's interests to do so. Ferguson enjoyed his days at the races to such an extent that he would smile without being prompted. The association between the only horse to win seven Group One races in a row and the only man to win eight Premiership titles benefited both parties. It was also beneficial to the Coolmore set in terms of publicity and putting across the general aura that it was a group exclusively for winners.
The problems started when the horse achieved near mythical status and Ferguson seems to have had difficulty facing up to the realities of his situation. There was never any confusion at Coolmore. To adopt a golfing maxim: they race for show and breed for dough. Winning Derbys keeps their women and associates happy but the real value of these triumphs kicks in later when you can charge up to £100,000 a nomination over and over again. A horse can win the Derby only once, it can go on breeding 200 times a year for 20 years.
There's glamour in the former, gold in the latter, and it's best to keep the operations separate. This has been the Coolmore way of doing things since Magnier went to Kentucky to purchase yearlings for the first time in 1975 saying: 'We are going to buy baby stallions. I have zero interest in anything which might easily win a big race if I do not think he will make a breeding stallion.'
By gifting an interest in a horse to an associate they retain complete control over it. There is nothing in writing to suggest otherwise and it is unlikely that any court in the land is going to believe that after a day in Ferguson's company Magnier turned to JP McManus and said: 'That Scottish fella seems an engaging chap let's lob him five million pounds' worth of horse.'
This makes Ferguson's desire to take them on all the more bewildering. Perhaps he believed the hype and, having seen so many pictures of him and the horse together, convinced himself it must be at least half his. Perhaps he was infuriated when it dawned on him that Coolmore saw him as useful PR rather than an equal. Perhaps, having been given something for a period of time, he cannot let it go. Whatever, a man conditioned to standing up to everyone has picked a fight with the wrong man on the wrong ground.
Nor is Magnier the only multimillionaire Ferguson may have fallen out with. By revealing that Roman Abramovich approached him he may have alienated the only football chairman with the clout to put pressure on the Manchester United board. Pressure Ferguson might have used to engineer a huge salary rise in his next contract. And the kind of pressure that has already seen Peter Kenyon leave United for Chelsea.
This move was rightly described by columnists as being of no account to football fans. It did, however, have an effect on Manchester United's share price, which dipped sharply because stockmarket players are more interested in the identity of the managing executive than that of the manager. Manchester United, unlike Chelsea, are owned by their shareholders. And the two men with the biggest stake in the club, owning an 11.5 per cent share, are Magnier and McManus. All in all, Ferguson would have been better off picking a fight with the multimillionaire Roy Keane.
