please please please mr r change your model

It would be pretty hard to create a compelling case for him to change his approach though. He's by far the most successful owner in terms of return for quantity of horses. Would you just want runners in all of the best races or runners in all the rubbish ones as well?

What we actually need is a few more doing the same as him, then it would be better than ever.

ccm - before i respond help me understand how it would be better if more were like him - sorry if i am being dense

I disagree CCM. Were Mullins stable to get the virus or a dodgy batch of feed RR would be royaly f*cked.

warren buffets share profolio is very diverse for that very reason jolly

WPM is the best in the business imo and has given RR unbelievable success. If he were to go on a barren tun, and did get any issues in the yard, then Im sure RR could rethink things. But why do that now based on the run he's had / having?

I understand the point about sharing the wealth, but RR isn't remotely in the league of JP or Gigg in terms of the amount of runners he has. He just wants to target the top races. How many horses has he got... Maybe 15? What I meant regarding a few more of him, was that if a few other trainers had a few more owners like him, then the top races would be even more competitive.

It's probably more like 25 now isn't it to be fair?

Reliable source told me Ricci owned 52 horses last season. Not exactly sure now.

Jesus! Had no idea it was that many. That is a staggering amount for one owner to have in one stable.

for me its more about the horse than the trainer, you could say rr has given wpm unbelievable success. whoever decides what rr buys has done very well, anyone know who that is?

Yes i was shocked also. You'd be amazed how many never make it to the track.

Here's one for you - Gigginstown sent 50+ horses to WPM for 2014/2015 season and only around 20 made it to the track. Unless a horse is exceptionally talented then it's a case of the strongest only survive in the yard. Reminds me of M. Pipe but WPM clearly has more classy horses.

Best thing for racing would be to have WPM have all the horses Ricci has and his other owners to go elsewhere. He could have a Godolphin type operation,and we could have top horses actually taking each other on.
All this what's Mullins gonna do with his horses every bloody year,and most of it is caused by one owner having so many horses and it seems having preferential treatment.....may be wrong on that,but it does seem that way to me.

ok i get what you mean now - but not really what i meant- the other owners i reference do not all have the same model but they all share two things in common (the two things i stated) jpm has hundreds of horses of all abilities as do godolphin and hamdan - khalid abdullah and the aga khan are very different and their model has quality at the heart of their operation and of paramount importance to their operations has always been not compromising their blood line (particulalrly in the case of AK).National hunt has benefitted enormously from the aga khans relentless desire to protect the quality of his bloodlines. How often do you see his colours donning a selling plater at bath

So when i say he hasnt plagirised i didnt mean he should buy hundreds of horses of all abilities nor did i mean he should set up a breeding operation i just meant for the better of the sport (in so many ways) i would like him to spread his horses and let them take each other on. so it is a little like stating the bleeding obvious that racing would benefit from more owners buying just top quality horses but it would benefit even more if each of those new owners spread their horses and let them take each other on.

in terms of you comments about why would he change anything - the answer to that is depends on why he owns horses - if he is interested in return on investment (you stated return for quality horses) - then racing is a crazy pursuit to invest in - unless you nail the breeding side which wont happpen with geldings the best you can hope for is to minimise losses and minimising losses seems a bizarre objective for both a hobby/passion and an investment.

so maybe the glory of success. well its the horse that gets the glory first and foremost followed by the trainer, stable staff and the jockey - the owner pays the bills. I remember a friend telling me that he saw clive smith signing autographs - seriously well done clive oyu were instrumental in the horses success - if you hadnt bought ks someone else would have !!!!

The thrill of winning - absolutely - totally get it i have experienced this feeling myself and there is nothing like it - jpm, hamdan and co get it too i reckon

the love of the sport - i hope so but how can it be if he really loved the sport he would let his horses compete against each other and he would let more people in racing benefit from his generous investment. If you asked me to stack rank the owners listed on their love for the sport based on the evidence i see he would be bottom of the list.

dont want to sidetrack my own post but a little side bar - reading the vautour thread - can anybody hand on heart say that if vautour wins KG and runs in ryanair rather than face djakadam in gc  thatis good for racing - its not the sport i fell in love with thats for sure

If anyone thinks that there are undiscovered horses with high potential you're wrong, there are many powerful owners around, RR is a medium one that got very lucky due to Mullins eyes for spotting good horses. RR complained that a few years ago the prices for French horses went stupidly high, so he had to concentrate on Ireland, thats about when they discovered Faugheen and others. More powerful owners means small trainers will become even smaller in the talent pool they can obtain for their yard because the prices will go ridiculously big and the big owners will choose big established trainers.

As for RR taking his own horses on, that happens when they don't know how good they are, but when they have an idea of their relative form why would they take them on? It's true RR should grow a pair and reject Mullins plans of keeping his horses home when they should have prep runs(see Faugheen before Chelt), or take other owned-Mullins horses on when they compete in the festivals, but thats RR decision to listen to his trainer, and he would do it even if his horses were with other trainers.

As for competition, if the best horses would all meet every time, you wouldn't learn to appreciate horses that come in 2nd, 3rd, and people will start saying there's no competition at all. Its good that they only meet once or twice per season because it gives every horse the chance to be appreciated and gather some following and fans along the way.

so timtin who did annie power take on and when did vautour take faugheen on are you saying you would not have liked to see faugheen v vautour (not multiple times ) but just once

if v and f were owned by jpm i think there is a more than reasonable chance they would have ran against each other - i think jpm would have relished it as much as the whole racing world

thank the lord that jpm owns jezki and mtoy otherwise we would not have witnessed one of the most exciting finishes to a ch ever

That would not be good for racing,it would be good for the jockey though!!!and could also be good for trainer and owner giving them a fair chance of 2 wins.
Personally I think that in this case he will want both in the Gold Cup if both have proved by then to have a good chance.That's just my opinion though,and if he  split them and had one in the Ryanair purely to try and win both races when they had both proved to be major GC contenders,well that for me would sum it up.

Regarding your 21.57 post Milton, I don't think it's that straightforward tbh... anything can go wrong in this game and having a winner at Cheltenham is every owners dream. Even RR who has done it countless times has said that is what he hears everything around. The fan in the street wants to see a vintage GC, but if Vautour and Djakadam finish first and second and somebody else wins the Ryanair, or both get beat and somebody else wins the Ryanair, what would you think if you were RR?

It's not his duty to give all racing fans a great GC. It's about protecting his own interests and giving himself the best chance to get Cheltenham winners.

As a brilliant Supreme winner, why didn't he take on UDS last year and make it a vintage Arkle? Because the best chance of winning a race was to go for the JLT. Maybe racing was the loser in the sense we didn't see a crackerjack race between those two, but we got to see two brilliant winners of the two different races. And had UDS been trained by somebody else, I don't think it would have been any different.

ccm - i am not saying he is wrong and i am not saying i dont understand his rationale -  i am saying his approach is not good for racing -

If JP owned v and f the probably would be racing against one another in some poxy handicap some where.

thanks arkle im out of here

No I understand that ms.

I just don' agree. JP's approach of running one trier every ten is worse in my eyes.

May well have been different had Vautour been trained by someone else though,he would have been in the Arkle then I imagine.

He ain't got a crystal ball. If you've got five who are in with a chance of winning the big one then run em. One of them may oblige. If you think it's like Woolies pick mix then chances are you'll get what you deserve. Nowt.

JP is probably one of the best people this sport has ever had.......Arkle that is shameful!!

When have you known him do that though EO?

He's always split up his horses to try and have runners and winners in as many races as possible. I'm no trying to say that's the right thing to do... It's just what RR has always done so I don't see why he would change his approach now.

Bud its also true especially with some of the trainers he has

ccm - my intention was not to showcase jpm as the perfect owner in all regards - just to illustrate that he sets a good example in allowing his good horses to compete against each other - and this trait of his deserves praise and hugely enriches our sport

JP's money has clearly been very good for racing, but it's hard to defend some of the things you see.

But ms, I think you are a bit naive if you think he is doing it for the good of racing.

In your average races he's doing it purely for himself and betting purposes mostly... In the big races he will let them run against each other mostly when there are no other options. Jezki and MTOY is a good example as they didn't have any other alternatives.

In most years when he has two good novices he will split them up and run one in the Supreme and one in the Neptune.

so timtin who did annie power take on and when did vautour take faugheen on are you saying you would not have liked to see faugheen v vautour (not multiple times ) but just once
Annie Power is part of RR `lack of a pair` to overrule Mullins, I covered that, he would do it with/listen of any other trainer.

As for his own horses, there wasn't a need for F vs V, F form was superior at the end of their novice season and why not send one of them chasing? I would rather prefered seen Faugheen chasing because we know he stays and they knew he can jump fences as he was a pointer, he would've been a more likely GC candidate than Vautour is at this stage, but RR and Mullins keep mentioning that F had a back injury in his early days so that is more against my idea of seeing him jumping a fence.

I would accept Douvan argument for staying hurdling, for those who pushed for it, because he's a young horse and would've shaken the CH market if he stayed for that code but again RR would've done the same thing if they were split among other trainers. I don't think his problem is the spreading of horses around. His problem is that he got too lucky in a short period of time and he tries to keep his horses separated. Look at Giggis with their Don Poli and Don Cossack conundrum. They will probably never meet if Don fails to win the KG,and they aren't owned by RR. Look at P&C and Top Notch, they only met when their owners didn't knew which one was better, they'll only meet again in the CH only because (1) there isn't a 2m4f festival race and (2) they were too young to have been sent chasing. All owners want to keep their horses apart until there's no other option.

Well it's not easy to be the perfect owner,especially with the amount of horses JP has,but at least he does spread them around,gives smaller trainers a chance of success,and let's his good ones take each other on. Far preferable than RR's approach in my view.

ok first of all i am not interested in judging his motives i am not st paul at the pearly gates - secondly if rr had owned jezki and mtoy maybe one of them would have stepped up in trip or gone novice chasing

All about opinions chaps, and respect yours.

But if I had enough money to be a leading owner, I know who I would be trying to emulate!

thats fine timtin - personally i would have been excited by a clash between v and f in their novice season (if i am in a minority then thats fine) and send one chasing the year after. i am not going to tackle the whose form was superior as will completely derail the thread -

can you imagine any other sport where the best not competing against each other would be considered a good thing

In most other sports there can only be one winner though... Everyone taking part with one prize at the end of it.

Racing is different... There are lots of big prizes, many as important as the other. So why not try and win as many of the big prizes as you can.

last time i looked athletics had grand prix mmetings on a regular basis with huge cash incentives, olympics, world championships et al - not sure how much fun it would be if someone said justin you run on the olympics and usain you can run in the world champs

if you're a sentimental owner and make a bond with a particular trainer, its easy for you to go check them out at the same time and hear the opinion from the same people working in that place.. I won't knock RR because he did in fact upped the level of competition and other trainers/owners are trynig their best to keep up with his team. Hendo made improvements with the way he's training his horses to handle soft ground, giving thm more options, etc. It adds a level of competitiveness even if it leaves a bit to desire on how RR listens to Mullins on every single thing. The only thing that RR made Mullins do was to get give horses more trips to England so thats a positive, right?...

That's completely different though. That's like saying RR is splitting horses between Chelts and Punch when actually he will try and win all the races at the same event / meeting.

A better analogy would be saying one run in the 100m and one run in the 200m to avoid each other. But again that's different as humans can compete in two events at the same meeting. Horses can't.

justin and usain interests are not aligned like its the case with horses owned by same person/s.

Yes I meant to add that. You can't make comparisons with sports that are about individuals competing for themselves.

Anyway, off to bed. Night fellas.

timtin - i am not saying rr is all bad - i think he deserves a lot of credit - but i can at the same time think his model of one trainer and not letting his good horses run against each other is not good for racing - my very first post says i think he is doing more harm than good - that implies that he is doing good but not enough to counter balance the bad - i think at the heart of EVERY spectator sport should be the fan, the spectator. Once they stop becoming the top priority no matter what the sport is then that is a bad thing in my view

there is an argument for criticising RR but only because he doesn't have enough experience in horse racing and listens to what Ruby/Mullins tell him. He would listen to other trainers the same way and would still keep his horses separated. On balance, the contribution RR is making by raising the level of competitivity, IMO slightly outweighs the other negatives with which I mostly agree, for instance not giving horses prep runs before the most important race of the calendar....

ccm - for tomorrow - the comparison is not the sport  (i know i am naieve but i think i fugured that athletes dont have owners and horses dont run twice the same day) that is not why i used athletics  - I am talking about the common theme throughout all spectator sports that fans expect and want to see the best compete against each other and when you deny them this it is not in the interest of the sport - yes of course it may well be in the interests of an individual in the sport (like an owner that wants to win as much as possible) - or a boxer avoiding a fight with someone he might lose too - but not the sport itself.

so again i get why he does it - telling me repeatedly why he does it doesnt make it any clearer to me because i already get it 100% - i just believe that if he didnt the sport as a whole would be better

one last thing (i am starting to bore myself now) if i am hoping that he never owns the best two 2 mile hurdlers or the best two 3m chasers and so on in any year that he remains an owner doesnt that say something - i have no control over whether that happens or not and his track record suggests it could happen on a regular basis in the future - that makes me anxious (and no other owner gives me this same anxiety) and that really really makes me want to phone him up and beg him to change his approach

Can understand your point of view BUT you're making an assumption that good horses come easy to WPM and RR. I don't know the number of horses available to be brought each year but only a tiny percentage make it as genuine Grade One horses. That means when they do get a good one, they want to enjoy him/her winning as much as they can. Whilst we're all frustrated with unanswered questions like Faugheen vs Vautour over hurdles, Vautour vs Un De Sceaux, Annie Power vs Jezki/MTOY vs Hurricane Fly, I think you used the wrong analogy comparing athletics to Ricci.

Ricci is able to spend millions on a sport with no good return. He's a businessman so should know better. He'd be better off buying a football club for a potential big profit. So he's in it for the enjoyment. The point of view you should be looking at is Ricci as a parent rather then simply an owner. If those horses were his children, I'd imagine like most parents, they want their kids to be the best they can be and despite some races holding more prestige over others, a Grade One is still a Grade One. Those kids are playing, to use a football analogy, for the same team. Different races is simply different position on the football field with the same goal as simply winning.

Well if he is in it for the enjoyment then I wonder how much enjoyment he gets knowing he has avoided horses to get a win.
Personally I would far more enjoy my horse beating UDS in the Arkle than winning the less prestigious JLT by a street. So he may lose the Arkle,but it's not as if he has only one shot at glory is it. Plus surely he would get pleasure with giving all of us a race to savour?
I really fear for the future of this sport should this continue in the regard of competitiveness at the top level,cos for me this will get worse unless as Miltons says, Ricci sees what's happening and changes his approach.

Other owners of Mullins horses would in my view be better off with some of the other darn good trainers in Ireland....or indeed in England.
UDS would then have run in the CHurdle for example and may well have won one or two!!
Their are others examples and no doubt more to come. As a lover of the sport I find it frustrating and totally agree with Miltons....I would love to see Ricci change his model,yes he's done good things for the sport but he could really make a difference on the negative side.

I think a big part of the problem is RUBY has too much power, and plans are often switched around so he can have a top ride in each festival race.

We always here "Ruby will want to ride them both" etc; but that is across all owners - Ruby wants to keep Ricci's and the Wylie's seperate because it increases HIS chances of festival winners.

Ricci should grow a set if he is convinced x should run in y, but when you have a Champion Jockey and a Champion Trainer both saying the same thing in your ear (especially if he is fairly new to the sport), who is he to question their judgement?

Not saying that's the correct way round, as he pays the bills, but from his point of view Mullins and Walsh have provided him with plenty of festival winners, and at the end of the day, that' what he's in it for.

We've seen him start to bring some over to England more often now (I'm sure he lives in England), so I think it's only a matter of time before he starts sending some good novice hurdlers to Henderson or Nicholls.

budd, I think you have rose coloured specs on when speaking of JP.
He's grown too big for the sport and anyone who thinks he's now beyond pulling a few strokes doesn't live in the real world. An honorary jockey club member now, he's at the top table and untouchable. Sure, he's effectively a massive employer and a generous benefactor in many ways. But it's all on his terms and the authorities ignore his many horses who don't run on their merits.

cause and effect - again you are missing my point - i am not saying i dont understand why he is doing it and i am not saying it is not to his own benefit (again for the millionth time i understand - nobody needs to justify this part on his behalf any more I AM SAYING I DONT THINK ITS GOOD FOR THE SPORT - and why i am at a loss is that for somebody to invest so heavily in a sport i cannot understand why they would not put the sport itself ahead of personal interest - or in other words get everything out of the sport your money deserves -, fun excitement, money glory e.t.c. e.t.c. but not at the expense of the fabric of the sport itself - and at the heart of any sport imo opinion should be the best facing off against each other. because horses have owners and athletes font imo should not change the basic concept of best v best

as for the parent piece ask the parents of the williams sisters how they would feel if their children decided to alternate tournaments so they maximised the chance of both of them winning something (and imagine how fans of the sport would feel if they decided to do this) - i guess luckily for the owners of race horses - horses probably dont have the same competitive instincts as humans (i.e vautour is not going to get upset if he is not asked to race against djakadam and even if he did he wouldnt beable to tell you

so just in case there is any confusion left - i used athletics as an analogy NOT because the sports are the same but because the sport would suffer if the best didnt compete against each other - NO OTHER REASON -

so lets use football to illustrate the ONLY point i am trying (obviously badly) to make - if somebody owned both bayern munich and barcelona - and entered one in the europa league and one in the champions league to maximise the chances of both being successful (of course that cant happen so please dont take me to literally) but it can in racing - and if that happened in football i think it would be bad for the sport - i am now off to have a valium

ok just before i have my valium - maybe it is easier this way -  if vautour wins the kg(going away at the end rather than just holding on) and the owner decides not to run both him and djakadam in the gc because he alos wants to win the ryanair - is this (note i am not asking if this is understandable, or if this is in the owners best interest or any other question that makes people feel the need to justify the owners decision) i am simply asking is this good for the sport

there was one comment i remember cant remember who from that said it would mean the ryanair would become a better race and that could be construed as good for the sport - ok that kind of answer talks to my question (i dont agree but at least it is an answer to the question i am actually asking - or the statement i have made)- any answer that justifies the owners actions does not

The expansion of the Cheltenham Festival has made it easier for horses to avoid each other (Quevega, Annie Power, the JLT, the Ryanair). However, I find it hard to believe that, if the Gold Cup were to be run next week, RR would not run both Djakadam and Vautour in it.
There must be examples of him running two in a top class race, though they don't spring to mind.

Personally I would far more enjoy my horse beating UDS in the Arkle than winning the less prestigious JLT by a street

How do you know he would have beaten UDS though budd?! I suppose this is the difference, and where the opinions differ on this thread....I cant imagine anything better than watching your own horse win a Championship race at the Cheltenham festival in that fashion... To risk that to take on a horse you might well lose to? A no brainer to me. Do people really think of UDS in a more positive light than Vautour because he won the Arkle and not the JLT? I dont think so myself.

MS. I understand that you are talking about the sport as a whole... I was just trying to counter the point from RR's point of viw. Again, I understand you get this. I just think its unrealistic to ask the fella to put the interests of his animals second and the sport first. Especially when he is still sending out brilliant horses to win the top races.

thanks ccm - i totally appreciate it is unrealistic to expect him to change - but that doesnt stop me wishing he would and in fact my lack of expectation that he will change is why i worry for the sport - because if others copy his model (because the personal benefit becomes compelling as those who justify rr have recognised) then i think the sport will be poorer for it. Owners like the aga khan (please forget about jpm as this has threatened to derail this thread too much) have gained enormous personal satisfaction from a sport they clearly love and have managed to do it while keeping the most basic essence of the sport alive i.e. the best should compete together even if i own them both.

And if more owners chose rr s model racing will become more like cycling where it is only the best of each camp that really compete (please before the temptation is too great for people to tell me the differences between cycling and racing)  - yes i know i am just trying to illustrate how i think racing would change - i dont want the best of each camp racing each other i want the best full stop. Same as i wouldnt want a country to only be allowed one athlete per event in the olympics as this would severely impact the sport.

btw - ithink you give him a lot of credit if you think his motive is the interest of the animal - idoubt the animal could care less whether he runs against cue card in the ryanair or djakadam in the gc (again just ullustrative i am not saying cc will run in the ryanair ....... i tell you this posting stuff is tough) - i think is is his interests that he is concerned about most unless the horse goes home and has a party when he wns the ryanair and locks himself away and refuses to talk for days when he finishes runner up to another of his owners horses in the gc - perhaps he will knock the owners door down and say why the hell didnt you run me in the ryanair i had a better chance of winning that.

Have to completely agree with CCM here.  Whilst in a wonderful world we'd love him to race his best against each other, if you had the chance of winning multiple festival races, you put your own interests first, by spreading your horses out, hedging your bets, rather than putting all your eggs in one basket.

The Aga Khan perspective, I think they are more bothered about creating very high value stallions that can cover mares for thousands and thousands.  It is worth the risk for them to run against each other, because whoever wins will increase their stud value several times over.

From a personal point of view, I own a small share in Sound Investment.  His long term target after he won the Old Roan and placed in the Paddy Power is the Ryanair.  If Vautour was aimed at the Ryanair and was pulled out the day of the race, would I be upset? Not a chance, I'd be made up.  From a race perspective it will be a big loss, but it is a big personal gain for me, so whilst the purist may not like it, it enhances my horse's chance of winning.

I go back to my original point though, and suggest that this rarely happened when Ruby was split between Nicholls and Mullins.  Forgetting the Ricci angle for a minute, Ruby didn't have the power to dictate where a horse could go because he had loyalty to two stables - it was probably more Nichols and Mullins both saying  "I'm running x in this race, you choose who to ride out of the two of us so we can sort a jockey out if you don't want it".  Now with Walsh being full time at one stable, I think he can dictate a lot more where horses run for his own personal gain.

well chief - i think you are justifying rrs approach  - i am not sure how many times (perhaps another few hundred) i have to say the same thing i get it from his perspective but i dont think it is good for the sport and i couldnt care less what the aga khans motives are for running horses against each other - i just think it is good for the sport that he does and the sport would be worse if he stopped

btw well chief did you know ak runs geldings against entires in group races - seems pretty sporting to me

also wellchief goodluck with sound investment thoroughly likeable and talented horse

So your point is that you want one owner to do what's best for the sport ahead of his own interests? FWIW I'm actually on your side wholeheartedly but I do understand Ricci's POV. He also has WPM and Ruby whispering in his ear for their own interests. Bottom line: he is NOT responsible for the greater good. If he's not happy about something, he can follow John Hales and transfer his horses elsewhere like JH did with Al Ferof when both disagreed on targets last season.

Well Chief is spot with Ruby as probably the decisive factor. Ricci has gone on record he wants Ruby on board. That was a couple of years and I very much doubt that has changed. If Ruby wants to ride another horse (UDS) then Ricci has a call to make. Run without Ruby or switch race. You're asking him to make a decision based on the greater good but Ricci has evidently made his decisions or agreed to those decisions based on Ruby's availability. It is what it is.

BTW, love your passion for the sport but we cannot the control of actions of others! GL

cause and effect - yes thats exactly what i want him to do unrealistic and idealistic of me of course - but as a lover of the sport i would need ice in my veins if i did not put the sport ahead of an owners profits - do i expect rr to think this way no - is he under any obligation to - of course not - but if i were so rich that i treated this as an awesome play space then i absolutely would sacrifice many things to ensure the sport is not compromised in any way - being that wealthy and so successful at what i do would provide me with that altruistic opportunity and i would grab it with both hands.

put more simply i would be honoured to provide the sport with an opportunity to see the best two chasers (just an example - i am not saying he has the best two chasers) run against each other if i owned them both - knowing what it would mean to the sport i love would give me a much bigger buzz than seeing the two horses win two separate races knowing i had put my own interests before the sport as a whole.

i get i am probably in the minority but even if there is a .000000001% chance he sees (or gets to hear about) this thread and it makes him think a little differently then it is worth the investment i have made.

I think you're actually the MAJORITY! I'm with you. He's an American. They only love winners but despite his aversion to finding out the best of the best, he has been decent for the sport pouring money in.

The problem with RR is that, although he clearly loves the thrill of racing and winning, he doesn't hold the same feelings towards the more prestigious races than we do. He sees Cheltenham as one big event whilst people like JP see it as GC,CC & CH and the also runs. Because of this he is easily swayed by Ruby who is trying to keep all his decent horses apart so he can ride them. In saying that i don't think Ruby has a chance in hell of keeping Vautour out of the GC unless he flops in the KG.

Yeah, I think we are all tending to agree here, in that we can all understand why he does what he does, but if we were in that situation, we might go about it in a different way (or we'd like to think we would anyway).

I think we should all be cheering on Gordon Elliot's horses, because he seems most likely to me to be able to put a dent in the Mullins/Walsh domination, and then maybe Ricci/Wylie can send some to him.

The Mullins/Walsh combo is all about number of winners imo, not the quality of winners.  We would all loved to have seen Quevega have a crack at Big Bucks, all racing fans wanted to see it (Voler La Vedette did, so why not Quevega), but they went down the easy route instead - Ricci was nothing to do with that, so I think it is more Ricci has been sucked in to the culture of the stable.

PS: Cheers MS.  He's up 4lbs for his placed effort in the Paddy Power, so will be a tough ask on Saturday.  Hoping he gets to Cheltenham in one piece.  I'm sure he'll find one or two too good, but you can always dream

nice wellcheif, v. good horse to be associated with, lots of wins and at 10/1 for Ryanair it looks like he has a proper shot in that as well. Good luck

maelduin - i agree - this is why i am so torn about the kg - i am a big dc fan and on one level would love him to win - i also feel cc has not been treated great so on another level would love him to win - i have less emotional attachment to vautour but i feel him winning the  kg well could be the easily the best result by far for racing as a whole - as itwill put this debate well and truly in a very bright public spotlight.

I feel if Vautour wins the kg impressively with no question mark and full of running  there will be a great deal of scrutiny around rrs decision whether to run him and Djak in the GC - there will be very little opportunity to site a reason for not running both other than the real reason if he choses not to (in other words his ability to pull the wool over our eyes by saying something like not sure he will stay the extra 2 furlongs simply wont hold enough water to be treated seriously - he would be forced to reveal his real motive (or be seen as completely disingenuous) - i.e. i would rather try and win both the gc and the ryanair than try and finish first and second in the gc. it would be really fascinating then to see the sports reaction

The alternative would be that a circumstance has occurred to make him rethink his stance and he runs both in the gc and that he then gives himself the freedom from that moment on to run his own horses against each other at pivotal moments because he starts to get what other owners have grown up knowing - some races are just so special that i am almost duty bound to honour their prestige even if it means a personal sacrifice.

so come kg day i am now a supporter of vautour despite having my own personal reasons for wanting dc and cc to win.

c&e - i agree about the american and winning thing but he has chosen to be part of a british sport - and the sport doesnt just need money it desperately needs integrity and credibility too and not pitching the best against each other damages both imo

wellchief - now i know you have an interest i will be cheering him on

totally agree re mr elliot - if rr is a typical american businessman loyalty wont be top of his priorities so maybe it will happen - would be a very good step imo -

thanks for listening

I admire your passion MS. Fair play.

Best of luck with Sound Investment Wellchief and we know you'll be hoping Vautour performs in the KG. Hey if you happen to be in the Nicholls yard please ask about that monster Aux Ptits Soins. What a horse to win the Coral Cup first time out. You're now my go to person for info on the Nicholls horses. j/k

Thanks a lot fellas.  It's only a small share (there are hundreds of share holders who all contribute a few hundred quid a year), so I haven't quite got PFN on my speed dial list yet maelduin   Being one of the group going up to collect the Old Roan trophy at Aintree was pretty special I have to admit.

If Vautour and Djakadam both ran in the Gold Cup, it'd be one hell of a spare ride for Townend!  I'd assume Cooper would pick Don Cossack in the Gold Cup too, so again, some cracking spare rides on Don Poi and RTR.  Some jockey's Christmas presents will be coming early in 2016!

bet ap's thinking that dp and i were made for each other aaaaaaagh -

I laugh when I hear guys on here advising the likes of RR that they would be better off sending their horses to other trainers. WMs owners do very well and without checking again I would imagine that they nowadays win more prize money than PFN's and NJH's owners combined especially when one includes his winners further afield

Has anyone on here actually said Ricci would be better off sending his horses to other trainers?

i laughed when i heard a guy on here who took for his username a horse whose connections campaigned him sportingly, including running in handicaps, suggest that the connections of coneygree should take a cautious route. the irony of it! we're all entitled to our views though and it would be boring if we all agreed.

Budd over the last couple of years people have suggested that owners should send their horses to other trainers and you suggested this in your 07.19 post earlier today - I said the likes of Ricci.

Jolly the horse you refer to was so far ahead of everything else (bar possibly Flyingbolt) that it probably did not matter how he was campaigned but I've no doubt Mr Dreaper carefully crossed all the Ts whenever he ran. You will be aware though he never raced him against Flyingbolt and if he had its very unlikely they would have won anything like the number of races they did. The reason he was campaigned in handicap races was that there were only a couple of grade one type races in those days. On the other hand it is generally agreed that Best Mate was a good one but not the greatest horse ever but he won three GCs and for that hats off to one Henrietta and in my opinion that was as good a training feat as we have ever seen. Horses are very strong but very delicate animals and they need careful minding,

you're right aa, they are strong but very delicate animals so it's easy for me as a non owner to want to see them in handicaps as well as in level weights races. it is also true though that injuries can be picked up anywhere which is another reason i dont really like all the avoidance of clashes that happens throughout the season.

sadly the breed seem to be getting more delicate over time, i think i heard that 1 in 3 yearlings wont ever make it to a racecourse. not sure if its just a flat problem or if nh horses are becoming less sound as well.

I Was saying other owners not Ricci would be better off with other trainers in regards to the fact that they would not have to compete with Riccis horses for the right to compete in top races.
I have no seen anyone advising Ricci to go to other trainers,just people saying it would be better for the sport.

My point would be that the Hennessy normally has a lot of runners is very competitive and they go at a good clip and even if a horse does not fall himself there is a danger that something else brings him down and he gets injured. We could of course say that it could never happen to Coneygree as he is likely to be ahead of everything else but anyone who remembers Carvills Hill might not be so certain of that. Denman carried big weights in the Hennessy but perhaps had he not run at Newbury he may very well have won three GCs but of course we will never know.

Apologies for taking the thread a wee bit off topic but its very unfair to suggest that RR's policy is not good for racing as nothing is ever cut and dried and if he was not involved some of his stars might be running in low grade handicaps somewhere or other.

Budd I'm certain if any owner wants to run his horse in any particular race including at Cheltenham there is unlikely to be a problem irrespective of who the trainer is. At last years Festival WM had 4 runners in the Neptune 5 in the AB 3 in the GC and 5 in the county hurdle which would indicate that they dont have to compete to run in such races.

Don't see how Ricci having his horses with other trainers would mean they would run against each other, they'd still be kept apart, unless of course you view the movement of the horses as a clear sign of a change in his thought process, but even if that were true he'd not need to move his horses to achieve this he'd just tell mullins to run them against each other and against other horses from the stable in the top races.

When questioned about this issue, Ricci will always answer it with the idea that he is part of "team mullins" if you like, and by definition is tasked with trying to generate as many festival winners for the stable as possible.

This above all other things seems to be the main thing, even if it means denying the racing public the dream battles it wants, it would take an extreme scenario to shake this unwritten rule, the Annie Power conundrum couldn't alter it and neither were Vautour and UDS allowed to take each other on.

What has to happen is for a horse to come along that is, in their eyes simply too good to be allowed to contest a race "beneath" it, as mentioned Vautour and UDS weren't allowed to take each other on last season but that was then and now we have the memory of that destructive JLT performance in our mind to think about. If Vautour doesn't stay on boxing day I think that scenario will exist and the horse will be allowed to take on UDS with Walsh firmly in the saddle.

Ricci won't find it ideal but I think even he will realize that a horse such as Vautour deserves no less.

If I see on boxing day between the last two fences that Vautour is running out of gas, I won't be joining the crowd and hammering the back button in the Ryanair market, instead I'll be clicking the back button in the Champion Chase market.....it will be a much less crowded place over there!!

Duffy what happens if both owners want to run (UDS and Vautour) in the Ch Ch and Ruby says he's riding UDS because he believes he is better over 2 miles than Vautour (I'm only supposing). Then RR has to decide does he want to win the Ryanair or come 2nd in the Ch Ch. I'd imagine he'd go Ryanair route. Should Ruby say he rides Vautour the owner of UDS has no choice as he would not get home in the Ryanair.

there'll be plenty for the CC @duffy but the problem is that market is stronger than the Ryanair. There's no point speculating on that, there's only 2 wks left. As for owners keeping their horses apart, here's what Hendo says: "Top Notch probably won't run as he's in the same ownership" when talking about the Bula hurdle. The OP will have to convince lots of owners to get their horses all in one race. I don't think that creates a lot of competition, it only gives a good horse and no room for speculation among fans of the sport. Each horse has its own ideal conditions and as a owner if you are that lucky to get more than a top quality horse, you'll try to win with all of them a race at the festival. Putting all the eggs in one basket doesnt sound too smart, just like putting all your horses in a single race isn't, unless you don't know the hierarchy amongst them which is where the bumper race comes in, RR had 4-5 in this year's, did any of them won?

Oh btw @duffy with Mullins I wouldn't click any bttons, just wait for the NRNB...

Firstly I don't think for one minute that Ruby would think that Vautour is inferior, but actually if he did I think that may actually work as an incentive for Ricci to prove him wrong, I would hope that Ricci would take that as an insult (in the nicest possible way) and want to prove Walsh wrong, but no, I saw the reaction Walsh gave after the JLT, the one where he had to hold himself back from saying that he was the best horse he'd ridden since Kauto Star. If they took each other on it would be UDS looking for another jockey I reckon.

@Arklearkle Ruby expressed many times that Vautour doesn't have the gears against the top 2 miles hurdlers, I don't know about chasers but UDS was near top class hurdler as well so Ruby will most likely choose UDS if RR insists(vvvv unlikely) he wants to run Vautour in the CC, but you know Mullins, he'll decide in the last week whats going to happen and we'll all be blindsided...

Would'nt that be great,to have Mullins top 2m chasers taking each other on.......now that would be good for the sport, but as you said though,unlikely.

We all know the sport is not upper most in their minds,maybe for a jockey and trainer that's fair enough?but Ricci is in a great position to think about the sport and its future.
Like Miltons said........I hope he reads this thread or hears about it somehow,nowt wrong with hope,even if it is highly unlikely.
A thread full of comments from genuine racing fans,it may just get him thinking.

What a mouthwatering thought the idea of UDS v. Vautour in the CC. Brings me back to the Buck House, Bobsline & Badsworth Boy era of great 2 milers. If only Ricci had an interest back then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion right now. Pity.

We're forgetting something here:

Vautour v Un De Sceaux v Sprinter Sacre

Now that would do nicely.