Emily Gilruth payout

It's been a long time coming, I'm glad it's been sorted at last.

Only thing is, will this make it more difficult for some to get rides as owners don't usually pay compensation when they take a horse away to another although this was down to a 'special' agreement, not a normal owner rider one.
 
I'd imagine the owner of the horse got reduced livery rates in lieu of the exclusivity of the ride / compensation for moving.

Good on Emily for being savvy enough to have a decent contract. If you want to have 100% say in who rides your horse then you have to accept you pay full price for the service.
 
Yes, I'm also pleased for Emily. Too often horses are brought on really well by less well known riders then when they are showing real potential go to a top rider. Chilli morning is a good example. How do riders like Emily and Nick get their opportunity to compete at the highest level if horses they bring on are then passed onto riders like OT and WFP?
 
Thing is, running an event horse is an expensive business. There is nothing wrong with an owner wanting their horse to be competitive at the highest levels. The sad fact is that some riders are great producers but don't quite have what it takes to bring home medals. It's a tough old world this eventing lark.
 
ihatework said:
Thing is, running an event horse is an expensive business. There is nothing wrong with an owner wanting their horse to be competitive at the highest levels. The sad fact is that some riders are great producers but don't quite have what it takes to bring home medals. It's a tough old world this eventing lark.
Click to expand...

I do agree with this in some respects. I can see it from the owners point of view totally, if you have a crazily talented horse you want it to have the best opportunity!
But from the riders point of view yes some are great producers but not top level competitors but some would be top level competitors but they just need a good horse & a good break but if owners keep giving away the rides how can they get the top level experience.

Eventing is a hard hard world! But an amazing 1 too!
 
Interesting that the article refers to a problem with the horse's lungs as the reason he was put to sleep. At the time I recall it was stated to be due to "neurological issues". A sad story all round really, perhaps he was a great three star horse owned by someone with four star ambitions. Glad Emily got compensation and Oli walked away from Kentucky able to ride another day. RIP Splash :(
 
ihatework said:
Thing is, running an event horse is an expensive business. There is nothing wrong with an owner wanting their horse to be competitive at the highest levels. The sad fact is that some riders are great producers but don't quite have what it takes to bring home medals. It's a tough old world this eventing lark.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.
 
Phew, the horse valuations are boggling. To think that a horse that can never actually win much money for its connections - unlike a racehorse - can be worth so much!

However, I think the contract the rider had with the owner sounds a very sensible one, and surely would be pretty standard. I would think that the "added value" of training and success is a debatable and contentious one.
 
Would have also taken a lot of hard work and guts to take him on in court. Not an easy thing to do. Glad she won as she was also the person doing the gutsy hard work to create a potential four-star horse.
Sad it all ended badly, particularly for the poor old horse.
 
kassieg said:
I do agree with this in some respects. I can see it from the owners point of view totally, if you have a crazily talented horse you want it to have the best opportunity!
But from the riders point of view yes some are great producers but not top level competitors but some would be top level competitors but they just need a good horse & a good break but if owners keep giving away the rides how can they get the top level experience.

Eventing is a hard hard world! But an amazing 1 too!
Click to expand...

I'm glad she won but I tend to agree with the above, she was pregnant with her 3rd child which for obvious reasons would take her out of high level competition for a while. An owner is not going to want to put on hold a very promising horse during this time since the horses career can be short enough as it is. The owner handled it badly and has paid the price. Just shows how important a good contract is.
 
I'm assuming that in exchange for signing such a ridiculous contract there must have been reduced training fees or something for the owner. Otherwise I cannot imagine why he would sign something that gives such control to the rider. Nowhere do any of the news reports say the rider is looking for compensation to cover lost earnings, ie she covered some expenses instead of owner which should now be repaid as she lost the ride. Obviously without seeing the contract it's only speculation but she won't do herself any favours with getting rides in future I would imagine. Not many owners will place horses with litigious riders! Or is it standard procedure now for a rider to expect a pay out of some kind on the basis that they add value to a horse when in reality that's the job they are being paid to do in the first place?
 
Event riders tend to work on a number of different contracts.

Obviously the standard £X a week competition livery + expenses. The owner can then call the shots.

It is very common for riders to take a % ownership of the horse in lieu of reduced training fees for the owner. This then protects the rider, you don't get rich of competition livery - and as an event rider you need the good horses to stay in your stable. Then if an owner wants to move the horse they have to buy the rider out. It's pretty common tbh. Remember it doesn't always work in one parties favour, horse values can fall to zero overnight!!

It sounds like Emily had a variation on the above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top