The Domination of Mullins & Co

Diamond Geezer

Diamond Geezer

Gone But Not Forgotten
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,884
Seems as if Charlie Swan is giving up training as can't make it pay. The sheer numbers and domination of the big yards, especially in Ireland, is surely going to have a knock on effect sooner rather than later and there will be many more casualties.
 
The exact same thing happens in business - large corporations squeezing out small businesses. It doesn't help that the property crash and the general economic malaise are shrinking the racehorse population meaning there are fewer to train.

Perhaps the smaller trainers could start a federation and fight for some form of anti-monopoly regulation concerning the number of horses that can be trained by Mullins or purchased by O'Leary. But then this would fly right in the face of healthy competition.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the three jumps trainers in the UK to have emerged the greatest impact are Ferguson, Fry and Skelton. The former getting all the Godolphin cast-offs and the latter pair being graduates of the Ditcheat machine. It appears that unless you have an intentionally small operation like Richard Newland, it's very difficult to make a fair crack of the training game without the right backing and connections.

How long can this be sustained for and what will happen when the sport passes the tipping point?
 
I have little time for these "domination' concerns. Before Mullins, it was Meade who was hoovering-up in irish Jumps races, and the same faux-worries were expressed then. They are bogus, imo. Both Gigginstown and McManus - by far and away the two biggest owners in Ireland - spread their horses liberally throughout the training ranks, and it is only Ricci who concentrates his horses with Mullins.....and their success is as much due to the spotter they use in France, as it is the way WPM trains them.

The issue is not how we can shackle the successful to give others a chance - it's about how those less-successful trainers can get better.
 
Would you not say that such concerns would be valid when it comes to owners?

It appears, without working out the actual stats, that there is a saturation of McManus, O'Leary and Wylie colours in all of the top graded races in Ireland. Owning a horse is expensive enough without having to worry about the fact you're unlikely to win anything of note and are instead dependant on becoming a fairytale story.

Indeed, a dearth of owners may well be worse for the sport than a reduced number of trainers.
 
spread their horses liberally throughout the training ranks, and it is only Ricci who concentrates his horses with Mullins
Click to expand...


Obviously there's always the odd exception but which "better class" horses are with the "smaller" trainers Grassy ? All very well giving the fodder to other trainers, but better horses will end up with the top two or three yards and smaller yards won't be earning enough prize money
 
Last edited:
Charlie Swan surely had his fair share of supporters JP and the such?

l can remember him winning the Scottish Champion Hurdle about 8 or 9 years ago but I can't say his name comes to mind for big wins

He will have known may top owners from his riding days but while they may still support you unless you bring in the bacon their better horses go elsewhere.

Perhaps he was middle of the road trainer living in the fast lane where he was as a jockey who knows?
 
I think Charlie wanted to go down the flat route and indeed won a couple of notable races in that sphere but he was perceived as "National Hunt" and the flat horses didn't materialise. Ruby has always said that if he enters the training ranks it will primarily be on the flat.
 
I'd like to say different because he always seems like a nice person. And with no real stats, just impressions and history to back up an opinion, I always had Charlie Swan as a trainer who would slow lose the talent of any well bred horse in his care. Could always count on his horses taking a chunk out of the market of a novice hurdle. The main reason why he hasn't made as big a success at training when compared to riding, is that he wasn't good enough. Not sure Willie Mullins has much to do with it.
 
Even if jumping is your first love in this day and age there really isn't a choice but to do both

And I think you hit the nail on the head Hawkwing.....being a great jockey doesn't automatically mean you're going to be a great trainer
 
Last edited:
Diamond Geezer said:
Obviously there's always the odd exception but which "better class" horses are with the "smaller" trainers Grassy ? All very well giving the fodder to other trainers, but better horses will end up with the top two or three yards and smaller yards won't be earning enough prize money
Click to expand...


Gigginstown have their best horses all over the parish. In fact, Sir Des Champs apart, Mullins probably gets the worst of them. McManus likewise - though given he has Frank Berry doing the buying, most of his horses couldn't be included in the "better class" bracket.

For me, it's up to the smaller trainers to show they deserve a top horse under their care, and it happens a lot more than you're conceding. The top-ten-rated Chasers in Ireland last season (according to Chasers & Hurdlers), were split between Willie Mullins, Philip Fenton, Tom Taaffe, Tony Martin, Mouse Morris, Shark Hanlon and Jim Culloty - and you would only describe one of those as a 'top-yard'.

The top-ten Irish Hurdlers are a slightly different matter, and were distributed between Jessica Harrington, Willie Mullins, Charles Byrnes and Dessie Hughes - with a heavy concentration under Mullins.......but that largely reflects that he has a tremendous spotter in France.

HawkWing answer the wider point adequately. I've precisely zero sympathy for trainers jacking it because they can't make it pay. The correct response in such circumstances is to say "Boo-hoo" not "How do we stop Mullins being so good?".
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
I have little time for these "domination' concerns. Before Mullins, it was Meade who was hoovering-up in irish Jumps races, and the same faux-worries were expressed then.
Click to expand...

Are you Bernine Ecclestone's alter ego? Although in truth most sports have gradually been refining a hierarchy now for a couple of decades (certainly those where 'teams' are involved as you get continuity in these sports and the chances to establish domineering dynasties)
 
Warbler said:
Are you Bernine Ecclestone's alter ego? Although in truth most sports have gradually been refining a hierarchy now for a couple of decades (certainly those where 'teams' are involved as you get continuity in these sports and the chances to establish domineering dynasties)
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're on about.
 
Bernie Ecclestone said that smaller teams could go to the wall for he was bothered, as all that people were interested in was Ferrari. It's the same principle. I think he was refering to a team called Catering (or something) and some other outfit that also went bust. He seemed to be teeing up a day when the natural extension would be 12 drivers in 12 Ferraris.

The one that annoys me is the trainers of southern England complaining about prize money but refusing to cross the channel. To listen to some trainers you think they'll onyl be satisfied when they can enter conditons races restricted to entries from their own stable competing for a £1m purse
 
Surely it's not just the trainers who don't want to go to Ireland.

You have owners to think about as well.

Their time may not allow there's the addition costs like hotel's and food for the staff, fuel, ferry fares and owners own travel costs and accommodation.
No idea how much the entire trip would cost but it's a helluva lot more than running at a fairly local track
 
Last edited:
Where have I said I don't give a monkeys about smaller trainers? I only said I disagree that there is domination to the extent that it's damaging, and that useless trainers will always go out of business regardless. You don't half talk some shite.

NB: Today is my first say off the snouts. I'm likely to be irascible for a good couple of weeks.
 
Grasshopper said:
Where have I said I don't give a monkeys about smaller trainers? I only said I disagree that there is domination to the extent that it's damaging, and that useless trainers will always go out of business regardless. You don't half talk some shite.

NB: Today is my first say off the snouts. I'm likely to be irascible for a good couple of weeks.
Click to expand...

No problem, I did read a thread earlier today involving Clive and Hamm arguing. It read seamlessly until I noticed Clive posting that he agreed with himself. It's only when I did a double take that I in fact realised it was your post that read so much like Clive's usual offering that I was unable to differentiate between them without looking at the names.

FWIW, I think your conclusion that "I have little time for these domination' concerns", is close enough to Bernie's not giving damn for smaller outfits, for there to be similarities. At least that's how I interpreted your denunciation of the unsuccessful trainer. What you're saying is you don't care about the concerns of one stable dominating (not unlike Aiden O'Brein as it happens). Having said that, I can equally accept that unsuccessful trainers are probably unsuccessful for a reason year after year.
 
Last edited:
Bachelors Hall said:
The exact same thing happens in business - large corporations squeezing out small businesses. It doesn't help that the property crash and the general economic malaise are shrinking the racehorse population meaning there are fewer to train.

Perhaps the smaller trainers could start a federation and fight for some form of anti-monopoly regulation concerning the number of horses that can be trained by Mullins or purchased by O'Leary. But then this would fly right in the face of healthy competition.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the three jumps trainers in the UK to have emerged the greatest impact are Ferguson, Fry and Skelton. The former getting all the Godolphin cast-offs and the latter pair being graduates of the Ditcheat machine. It appears that unless you have an intentionally small operation like Richard Newland, it's very difficult to make a fair crack of the training game without the right backing and connections.

How long can this be sustained for and what will happen when the sport passes the tipping point?
Click to expand...

this is a bit unfair on these trainers imo. Skelton and Fry have clearly picked up a lot from working with nichols but so did Alan Berry from his dad. I think they deserve a fair bit of credit.

There is always room for small yards making chipping away and making an impact. It will always happen in the same way that small businesses will always chip away at big ones. Once a yard becomes dominated by certain owners and has a huge number of horses then clearly some owners will look for a little more personal service. Some of these owners will have money too. Nothing lasts for ever and as trainers such as Nicky the needle seemed to have become terrified of running his horses at all, then someone else will pop up and say "i can do a better job with that mate"
 
I dont give a toss about smaller trainers, even if they are dwarfs.

Its a pure meritocracy. Sport isnt about some fat left wing bag lady with a face like a bag of spanners banging on about "equal opportunities" . it not fcking Lambeth council.

They know what they are getting into and thats that.
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
No problem, I did read a thread earlier today involving Clive and Hamm arguing. It read seamlessly until I noticed Clive posting that he agreed with himself. It's only when I did a double take that I in fact realised it was your post that read so much like Clive's usual offering that I was unable to differentiate between them without looking at the names.

FWIW, I think your conclusion that "I have little time for these domination' concerns", is close enough to Bernie's not giving damn for smaller outfits, for there to be similarities. At least that's how I interpreted your denunciation of the unsuccessful trainer. What you're saying is you don't care about the concerns of one stable dominating (not unlike Aiden O'Brein as it happens). Having said that, I can equally accept that unsuccessful trainers are probably unsuccessful for a reason year after year.
Click to expand...


Think whatever you like. I couldn't care less what you think, and have no interest in reading the interminable lines of drivel you trot-out, in an attempt to justify your thoughts.

NB: This is me being irascible. I'll hopefully be over it in a few days/
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
this is a bit unfair on these trainers imo. Skelton and Fry have clearly picked up a lot from working with nichols but so did Alan Berry from his dad. I think they deserve a fair bit of credit.

There is always room for small yards making chipping away and making an impact. It will always happen in the same way that small businesses will always chip away at big ones. Once a yard becomes dominated by certain owners and has a huge number of horses then clearly some owners will look for a little more personal service. Some of these owners will have money too. Nothing lasts for ever and as trainers such as Nicky the needle seemed to have become terrified of running his horses at all, then someone else will pop up and say "i can do a better job with that mate"
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to do Skelton and Fry a disservice as they are clearly very talented trainers in their own rights. Nevertheless, they have advantages in numerous top owners and contacts, and in Fry's case a champion hurdler, which wouldn't be afforded to the ordinary start-up trainer. As for Alan Berry, he took over the family business in the manner of a Pipe, Easterby or Hannon etc.

I don't believe that the training game is wholly meritocratic as that implies that one only needs talent to survive which isn't the case when talented trainers, such as Alison Thorpe for example, are unable to make ends meet.
 
Talented trainers should always be able to make ends meet. If you can't, it's probably because you're not talented enough.
 
Usually but not probably.

If fortune always and only favoured the talented then why has your favourite trainer, Mr Sherwood, been keeping his ship afloat for 31 years?
 
Back
Top