Kauto Star

Songsheet said:
it's about what had been agreed months ago and which was obviously reneged on.
Click to expand...

We don't know what was agreed on though. Nicholls says all sorts of things. And anyway it is the owner's prerogative to decide what he likes... What I object to is Nicholls trying to take the moral high ground on everything when it's really just a form of self promotion. It has clearly backfired on this occasion.
 
Last edited:
I've said it elsewhere and I'll say it here - I'm amazed that so many people seem to think they have heard the whole story and formulated an opinion on that basis. You don't take sides in an argument when you've only heard the last, acrimonious, closing statements (well, you don't if you don't want to end up with egg on your face).

The shenanigans this week are just the end-game in the whole messy situation.
 
Muttley said:
I've said it elsewhere and I'll say it here - I'm amazed that so many people seem to think they have heard the whole story and formulated an opinion on that basis. You don't take sides in an argument when you've only heard the last, acrimonious, closing statements (well, you don't if you don't want to end up with egg on your face).

The shenanigans this week are just the end-game in the whole messy situation.
Click to expand...

i can't really agree tbh

as someone who knows nothing about the situation except what has been in the public domain..its not painted a great picture of Nicholls to me..or many other people i would assume.

as a PR exercise its poor for the stable with the Facebook or Tw@tter or whatever it was.. stuff adding fuel to the fire...looks bad basically

so even if there is info that will come out that would be sympathetic to the stable..it won't mend what the perception has been imo
 
Muttley said:
I've said it elsewhere and I'll say it here - I'm amazed that so many people seem to think they have heard the whole story and formulated an opinion on that basis. You don't take sides in an argument when you've only heard the last, acrimonious, closing statements (well, you don't if you don't want to end up with egg on your face).

The shenanigans this week are just the end-game in the whole messy situation.
Click to expand...

I can't disagree with this.

It's fair to say there are different facets to this story, and whether Kauto Star should or shouldn't be doing dressage isn't really a part of it at all. Paul Nicholls may have a reputation for playing the media well, but he's a rank amateur next to his erstwhile patron.
 
EC1, I find that incredibly narrow-minded. I really do think that many people have made up their minds based on the way the end of it was handled, coupled with their preconceived notions about Paul Nicholls.
 
Muttley said:
EC1, I find that incredibly narrow-minded. I really do think that many people have made up their minds based on the way the end of it was handled, coupled with their preconceived notions about Paul Nicholls.
Click to expand...


i don't mean to be narrow minded..i am just reading the situation with what has been told. PR wise its not been good is my point..and once a story hits the media that is generally when people make up their minds. I personally don't care that much as i think its a storm in a teacup..and should never had got out of hand like it has.

my own personal view would normally favour a trainer over an owner..and have disagreed with owners on here about owners telling trainers/jockeys what tactics should be employed in races. In this case though i have to say that surely an owner does have the right to do with a horse what he wants when it finishes racing.

my opinion of Nicholls has generally been that he is a very good trainer..my opinion of him as a man dropped over the comments aimed at Henderson after the National win..but that has nothing to with this.

if an owner was telling Nicholls how to campaign a horse..i would be firmly in the trainers corner..even if i thought a trainer was a total dickhead..personal opinion doesn't come in to it.
 
Last edited:
Diamond Geezer said:
Eggs on faces later this week methinks.
Click to expand...


i won't have any on mine...this is a discussion board and we are discussing what is in the public domain.

owners on here have told me over the years they call the shots..even if if its completely stupid what they want doing with a horse

now all of a sudden..coz it don't suit..its the trainer who should calls the shots

maketh yer minds up like

i don't give a fig what comes out tbh...so smug levels can be slightly reduced at your end on my behalf;)
 
Last edited:
Would agree in general with the comments about PN's handling of the situation, although I have heard he has had incredible provocation.

However, Clifford Baker is a completely different personality and its sad to see how badly this has affected him. Proper owners always consider the feelings of the person who is closest to the horse in question and when we're talking of a horse of this stature, who has given everything to all those around him - owner, trainer, stable staff alike, then as long as you know your horse's welfare will not be compromised, then the right thing to do would be to offer him to the person who has looked after him so well, in this case - Clifford.

Can't explain it any better but it is just the right route to take!
 
Oh-ho! So, those who think they're in the know are telling anyone who disagrees with PFN that they'll end up with egg on their faces soon enough?!

Firstly, & I cannot emphasise this enough - Clive Smith owns the horse & has spent many thousands of pounds to keep him at the yard. Ergo, whatever PFN groupies & pony patters think, it is Clive Smith who has the absolute right to make the decisions. How dare anyone say that the 'only right thing to do' is for someone to gift a priceless horse (for whom they paid £400k) to the person who rode him at the yard, who was doing the job they were paid to do? That's just nonsense talk.

Secondly, there was no such furore when Denman went to Gloucestershire to hunt/team chase nor when Neptune Collonges went to Hales' daughter to do dressage.

Thirdly, from what I've heard - & it's from impeccable sources - PFN is not the saint he strives to be perceived as. I also agree with the views that some people have aired whereby it is thought that keeping KS at Ditcheat was merely a marketing exercise.
 
Maybe it's because I - along with others - are fed up with the dodgy handshake, wink-wink "once you know what we know you'll look stupid" of the Pumpkin groupies?
 
People should put up or shut up. Alluding to something without substantiation does a disservice to everyone. It’s nothing to do with being “closed minded”, it is rather seeking simple clarity.
 
Last edited:
Muttley said:
There is never any need to attempt to demean people who hold a different opinion to you - because that's all it is - opinion.
Click to expand...

No one is doing that. It is nothing to do with holding different opinions as we don't know what the substance of it is.
 
Last edited:
It's nothing to do with opinions - it's the smug "you wait till you know what we do" attitude of the Pumpkin groupies allayed with the absolute & irrefutable fact that Kauto Star belongs to Clive Smith. He bought him; he's paid all the bills for him; he can do with him what he damn well likes. I tell you what; all those who are of the opinion that it's 'the only right thing to do' is to gift him to Clifford Baker should make an offer to Clive Smith & then it's settled. Any amount in excess of £1m should seal the bid.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muttley
There is never any need to attempt to demean people who hold a different opinion to you - because that's all it is - opinion.

No one is doing that. It is nothing to do with holding different opinions as we don't know what the substance of it is.
Click to expand...

Pardon? You think calling people "PFN groupies", "Pumpkin groupies" and "pony patters" isn't demeaning them?
 
Muttley said:
Pardon? You think calling people "PFN groupies", "Pumpkin groupies" and "pony patters" isn't demeaning them?
Click to expand...

I'm losing the point that you're making. You were talking about demeaning people who hold different opinions. We cannot know if we have different opinions as we don't know what the substance of the matter being alluded to is. We don't know what the "facts" are, or if indeed if they are facts at all. If you do then please enlighten. Otherwise we haven't much to talk about.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top