MORE ON THE ROCK
Now that the nation's penalty-taker 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.
Co-ownership is a broad concept. I could pay for the hoof of a race horse and parade myself as co-owner 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. 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. By gifting an interest in a horse to an associate they retain complete control over it. There is nothing in writing to suggest otherwise.
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.
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.
Co-ownership is a broad concept. I could pay for the hoof of a race horse and parade myself as co-owner 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. 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. By gifting an interest in a horse to an associate they retain complete control over it. There is nothing in writing to suggest otherwise.
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.