Post deleted

Ambers Echo said:
As far as I can tell she’s trying to raise enough to afford 55% at an inflated value. Perhaps she believes she has enough members of the syndicate who would sell to her to get her to 55% so she has control. Who knows.
Click to expand...

But she says it’s the owner who has 55% who wants to sell and she needs to buy them out, which would be the woman abroad who now has Tyler’s horse who was apparently seized as neglected. Someone has asked Tyler the same question about why they’d sell to her if they tried to remove the horse and she didn’t reply.

Milly is claiming it’s a witch hunt based on a financial fall out and she’s due to share her own evidence.

I’m not defending any of it btw and don’t really have a stance on who’s right or wrong as the evidence given so far on all sides is too murky, I just genuinely can’t get my head around wtf is going on!
 
Tiddlypom said:
The GFM is still live despite apparently being reported 😬, and donations are still coming in.

I’m a GFM cynic at the best of times, but this is playing out in a more bizarre way than even I had anticipated.
Click to expand...

I kinda rolled by eyes at the GFM and personally would never donate to this type of cause but I also did not see this drama unfolding from it all!
 
I think GFM has very particular circumstances to call something fraudulent. I'm not sure if they will find this as such given the current mess

Examples of expressly forbidden fraudulent activity​

  • Breaking the law
  • Lying or being misleading about your identity as a campaign organizer or your relationship to the ultimate recipient of the funds
  • Posting misleading statements in the campaign story

Examples that are not considered to be fraudulent activity​

Sometimes, there are situations that may raise questions but are not considered examples of fraudulent activity on our platform. These include:

  • Speculation of fraud or rumors that the campaign is a scam
  • Images or names of individuals being used without permission of the family
  • Disagreement around the nature of the campaign or the character of the campaign organizer
  • Campaigns that have surpassed their goal but are still raising funds
  • Custody or familial disputes or disagreements
  • Multiple campaigns set up for one purpose or for the same beneficiary
 
KikiDee said:
The bit I don’t understand is, if the owner has welfare concerns and has tried to retrieve the horse, why would buying him even be an option?

Like I say, it’s all very bizarre and about 4 sides to the story so far, will be curious to see what comes out of it all.
Click to expand...
Perhaps they had no intention of selling him to her and made up this figure knowing she couldn’t fund it… and they were perhaps trying to stop any confrontation - who knows. But Millie will have to respond and it will be interesting to see what comes out next.

One things for sure, it’s yet another blow to dressage and the elite.

I’m also starting to think I don’t want this lifestyle for my kids… might have to look at another sport! Haha
 
scats said:
Anyone else think it looks too covered/fat in the first photo?

I’m not saying this is the case here (I’ve actually got no idea what’s going on), but people nowadays do think fatter horses are ‘normal and healthy.
I think if most people saw a fit, lean horse, they’d think it was far too thin. Like dogs, people are so used to fat dogs that anything a healthy weight is seen as underweight.

I see lots of “the horse is emaciated” online when it really isn’t. It’s just not carrying oodles of fat on its bones.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that also wasn't one of the examples given that was Milly's comparison herself.
 
Matafleur said:
Yes, I do. I agree that people are used to seeing fatter horses these days and that in terms of their weight, the horses in the pics aren't terrible by any means.

But I also think that when a horse is away for dressage schooling and drops muscle along it's back and quarters like that then it really isn't being ridden correctly either.
Click to expand...

I agree. Horse is way too fat in the first photo (but has a lovely expression and vibe) and I would fully expect him to be lighter and tighter after training.
But in the later photo his muscling and condition doesn’t really support his age and level of training, something dysfunctional is underlying.
 
Last edited:
greasedweasel said:
Yes I’ve said that further up the thread too. The photos taken as evidence that these horses have lost condition are very odd. I’m not saying they haven’t but you’d post a straight up confirmation shot not some random “horse not square, taken from below, just of its hip” shot. I can make ANY horse look angular that way. Or a “look at the shiny before photo of the wet horse” Again I am not saying there are not issues just that the photos used, both the before and afters, are odd. Also going to say… having been very anti the GFM (anti them in general) Millie IS a very lovely rider. The person out to expose her not so much…
Click to expand...

There's a court case pending, the evidence has been kept back. This isnt someone with a grudge against her, hes very well known and has an awful lot to lose if hes making this up. Hes not making it up. The issue isnt so much the condition, its that horses are being left while she goes out drinking and socialising. Just left in their stables not fed or watered or mucked out. Theres reams of evidence backing that up. I guess the weird photos were posted to try and show it without putting any of the actual evidence up.

Theres a reason Mary Wanless isnt supporting her anymore, guess we know why now. Theres a reason the whole thing was shady, and despite everyone saying how transparent it was, it just wasnt, the figures didnt add up at any point, her dad profited from the sale and couldnt help, clearly because the horse wasnt expected to be removed from her and then all this came out. At this point it doesnt look like buying the horse was ever an option. If she only refunds amounts over £25 then shes had one hell of a pay day!

People need to start using critical thinking skills before handing over money to strangers. Parasocial relationships arent real. You dont know her based on social media no matter how much it feels like you do. And at the end of the day thats why people donate, they feel like they know this person and they are a good, kind trainer and they want to support them, so questions asked about the amount, the money etc are all brushed aside becauase "she wouldnt do that"
 
Last edited:
I'm Dun said:
There's a court case pending, the evidence has been kept back. This isnt someone with a grudge against her, hes very well known and has an awful lot to lose if hes making this up. Hes not making it up. The issue isnt so much the condition, its that horses are being left while she goes out drinking and socialising. Just left in their stables not fed or watered or mucked out. Theres reams of evidence backing that up. I guess the weird photos were posted to try and show it without putting any of the actual evidence up.

Theres a reason Mary Wanless isnt supporting her anymore, guess we know why now. Theres a reason the whole thing was shady, and despite everyone saying how transparent it was, it just wasnt, the figures didnt add up at any point, her dad profited from the sale and couldnt help, clearly because the horse wasnt expected to be removed from her and then all this came out. At this point it doesnt look like buying the horse was ever an option. If she only refunds amounts over £25 then shes had one hell of a pay day!

People need to start using critical thinking skills before handing over money to strangers. Parasocial relationships arent real. You dont know her based on social media no matter how much it feels like you do. And at the end of the day thats why people donate, they feel like they know this person and they are a good, kind trainer and they want to support them, so questions asked about the amount, the money etc are all brushed aside becauase "she wouldnt do that"
Click to expand...
Most of the donations are between 5 and 20 pounds. So yes, what happens to cash.
 
I’m
I'm Dun said:
There's a court case pending, the evidence has been kept back. This isnt someone with a grudge against her, hes very well known and has an awful lot to lose if hes making this up. Hes not making it up. The issue isnt so much the condition, its that horses are being left while she goes out drinking and socialising. Just left in their stables not fed or watered or mucked out. Theres reams of evidence backing that up. I guess the weird photos were posted to try and show it without putting any of the actual evidence up.

Theres a reason Mary Wanless isnt supporting her anymore, guess we know why now. Theres a reason the whole thing was shady, and despite everyone saying how transparent it was, it just wasnt, the figures didnt add up at any point, her dad profited from the sale and couldnt help, clearly because the horse wasnt expected to be removed from her and then all this came out. At this point it doesnt look like buying the horse was ever an option. If she only refunds amounts over £25 then shes had one hell of a pay day!

People need to start using critical thinking skills before handing over money to strangers. Parasocial relationships arent real. You dont know her based on social media no matter how much it feels like you do. And at the end of the day thats why people donate, they feel like they know this person and they are a good, kind trainer and they want to support them, so questions asked about the amount, the money etc are all brushed aside becauase "she wouldnt do that"
Click to expand...
💯 this.
I used to work for a young dressage rider. Her family were horsey and they had a lot of money. They were also vile people. Their yard was a revolving door of staff.
The horses weren’t ‘abused’ but they have a miserable life of no turnout and just seeing their stables, the walker and the indoor school. They didn’t hack out, were exercised in draw reins or lunged in pessoas.
They have invested millions for the daughter. Every time there’s a sniff of a problem their social media army leap on. I met one of the loyalist followers and asked her if she knew them? She didn’t really but she’d had a lesson there once and all the pictures on social media pointed to high welfare - the horses were all shiny and looked well, the facilities were amazing and the daughter is winning internationally - so it’s got to be alright ??
 
scats said:
Anyone else think it looks too covered/fat in the first photo?

I’m not saying this is the case here (I’ve actually got no idea what’s going on), but people nowadays do think fatter horses are ‘normal and healthy.
I think if most people saw a fit, lean horse, they’d think it was far too thin. Like dogs, people are so used to fat dogs that anything a healthy weight is seen as underweight.

I see lots of “the horse is emaciated” online when it really isn’t. It’s just not carrying oodles of fat on its bones.
Click to expand...

I agree it looks fat in the first photo and probably better weight-wise in the second, though not in terms of muscle condition so much. It's the mechanics of the movement in the second photo and the general demeanour of the horse that worry and disappoint me. This is a recurring issue in modern dressage and not something specific to this rider - it's why I no longer engage with it as a sport.

But this is, of course, a mad and depressing situation to watch playing our.
 
I've just seen this thread and hadn't heard of her before. Her post says she needs 55% to buy out the owners. If she needs £80k, that makes the horse's value approx £146k. Is that right? How many people actually own a share in this horse?
 
TB claims that she “started seeing the decline in jaeger pretty rapidly” and yet still gifted MD part of the ownership, and was also presumably in support of MD keeping the ride when MD/LZ (the owner abroad) were advertising shares in the horse.

There is very clearly bad blood between MD and TB/LZ, since LZ is now riding Jaeger and posting about how the horse has never looked better (even though he looks considerably tenser and BTV than when he was with MD). And quite frankly I find it quite odd that LZ, the part owner, has picked up the rides on two horses that were previously with MD - last I checked, owners do the owning, they don’t start becoming the riders themselves.

Either way, the narratives of all parties involved need to be taken with a pinch of salt. You can’t only preach critical thinking for the side you support.

I'm Dun said:
This isnt someone with a grudge against her, hes very well known and has an awful lot to lose if hes making this up. Hes not making it up.
Click to expand...
If Tyler is so well-known to you, surely you should know 'he' 's a she?
 
I saw the Tyler FB post this morning, and realised it was linked to this.. As they say, each side has their story but the truth is often somewhere in the middle. Either way it all seems like bad blood and one hell of a mess.

One question I have is, how on earth can she get away with only refunding donations above £25? They will make up the bulk of donations, so it seems bang out of order to me!
 
ihatework said:
TBH owners can ultimately do what they damn well want* given they own the horse and presumably pay the bills.

*subject to contractual terms

Most riders get bitten early in their careers by not sufficiently protecting themselves contractual
Click to expand...
It's tricky isn't it? I think a lot of young but talented riders are probably short of people to advise them in this sort of thing and then they are left unprotected or with contracts they can't realistically fulfill. It's so easy to get carried away when faced with what looks like a great opportunity.
 
stangs said:
TB claims that she “started seeing the decline in jaeger pretty rapidly” and yet still gifted MD part of the ownership, and was also presumably in support of MD keeping the ride when MD/LZ (the owner abroad) were advertising shares in the horse.

There is very clearly bad blood between MD and TB/LZ, since LZ is now riding Jaeger and posting about how the horse has never looked better (even though he looks considerably tenser and BTV than when he was with MD). And quite frankly I find it quite odd that LZ, the part owner, has picked up the rides on two horses that were previously with MD - last I checked, owners do the owning, they don’t start becoming the riders themselves.

Either way, the narratives of all parties involved need to be taken with a pinch of salt. You can’t only preach critical thinking for the side you support.


If Tyler is so well-known to you, surely you should know 'he' 's a she?
Click to expand...

The % share holder also posted after receiving TB's horse back "'we have 70% owners wishing to be bought out - solely because it was the initial plan for the current owners (myself included, I own 25% but happy to keep it) to sell him. Owned him for nearly a year, with the main owner having owned since foal 🐴 Perfect x-rays, very easy to handle, healthy, hot, brave, hard working horse. At his previous training place unfortunately due to lack of communication the agreed terms were not maintained resulting in overdue / terminated agreements so despite he is just 2 months with me - there’s high pressure to sell.'"

So either one of three things have happened:

1 - MD was overrunning her agreed terms on the horses she was riding and was refusing to sell or return them. They had a massive fallout over it, and now these claims are being made because of the bad blood.
2 - She overran her terms, they decided to go in and get the horse back so they could sell it, and that is when they actually discovered the poor condition he was in, so they’re going public with it now.
3 - They actually knew the horses were being kept in a bad way for a while, but they didn't say anything until they wanted the horse back to sell. Once they all fell out over the contract, the welfare stuff became weaponised.

The horse went straight back into training when it arrived at the new yard so clearly wasn't 'emaciated' as claimed, or why would TB be happy for the horse to be straight back into intensive training?

The screenshot being shared about how poor the horse apparently looked when it arrived was after it had presumably travelled for a week back to Estonia. Someone else has shared a video of him on the yard apparently from before he left where he looks in perfectly good condition.

There are other posts from different owners claiming their horses weren't looked after when with MD. There are also posts from people who's horses have been with MD saying their horses were looked after well.

I don't think TB has behaved at all professionally in the whole situation, I find their post and subsequent comments quite bizarre from someone of their standing and the sort of thing I'd expect to see posted on a Facebook group from a disgruntled ex-livery. I don't read anything into the fact MD and MW haven't commented on the situation as neither would I, especially if there is a legal case ongoing.

Ultimately there is a lot of mud-slinging going on and I don't think anyone can form any sort of judgement on the situation unless you have some first-hand knowledge that the rest of us don't. If there is a legal battle, evidence and a welfare case documented no doubt it will be publicised and the facts will soon come out whatever the outcome.
 
Matafleur said:
It's tricky isn't it? I think a lot of young but talented riders are probably short of people to advise them in this sort of thing and then they are left unprotected or with contracts they can't realistically fulfill. It's so easy to get carried away when faced with what looks like a great opportunity.
Click to expand...

And often it is a good opportunity. Owners are taking bigger risks placing nice horses with younger unproven riders. There are pros and cons for both parties. Ultimately as a young aspiring rider, you need to be seen on nice horses for owners, producing results and conducting yourself professionally. At this stage as a rider you are often/usually subsidising the owner. It’s unlikely that you will ever have any significant say in what ultimately happens long term with the horse, but it’s not unreasonable to build in a contractual % the owner is liable to repay if the horse is moved on.
 
KikiDee said:
The % share holder also posted after receiving TB's horse back "'we have 70% owners wishing to be bought out - solely because it was the initial plan for the current owners (myself included, I own 25% but happy to keep it) to sell him. Owned him for nearly a year, with the main owner having owned since foal 🐴 Perfect x-rays, very easy to handle, healthy, hot, brave, hard working horse. At his previous training place unfortunately due to lack of communication the agreed terms were not maintained resulting in overdue / terminated agreements so despite he is just 2 months with me - there’s high pressure to sell.'"

So either one of three things have happened:

1 - MD was overrunning her agreed terms on the horses she was riding and was refusing to sell or return them. They had a massive fallout over it, and now these claims are being made because of the bad blood.
2 - She overran her terms, they decided to go in and get the horse back so they could sell it, and that is when they actually discovered the poor condition he was in, so they’re going public with it now.
3 - They actually knew the horses were being kept in a bad way for a while, but they didn't say anything until they wanted the horse back to sell. Once they all fell out over the contract, the welfare stuff became weaponised.

The horse went straight back into training when it arrived at the new yard so clearly wasn't 'emaciated' as claimed, or why would TB be happy for the horse to be straight back into intensive training?

The screenshot being shared about how poor the horse apparently looked when it arrived was after it had presumably travelled for a week back to Estonia. Someone else has shared a video of him on the yard apparently from before he left where he looks in perfectly good condition.

There are other posts from different owners claiming their horses weren't looked after when with MD. There are also posts from people who's horses have been with MD saying their horses were looked after well.

I don't think TB has behaved at all professionally in the whole situation, I find their post and subsequent comments quite bizarre from someone of their standing and the sort of thing I'd expect to see posted on a Facebook group from a disgruntled ex-livery. I don't read anything into the fact MD and MW haven't commented on the situation as neither would I, especially if there is a legal case ongoing.

Ultimately there is a lot of mud-slinging going on and I don't think anyone can form any sort of judgement on the situation unless you have some first-hand knowledge that the rest of us don't. If there is a legal battle, evidence and a welfare case documented no doubt it will be publicised and the facts will soon come out whatever the outcome.
Click to expand...

Yes, I found it odd that Tyler said that the horse (Jagger? Jaeger? Ja(e)g(g)erbomb? They all seem to call it different things) was in such dire emaciated condition and “an appalling state” in that photo (which was taken post-transport at the new place in Europe, and while the topline is poor and the horse looks undermuscled it doesn’t look emaciated?) — yet within a few rides the new rider, Olaf’s majority owner, was doing canter half-pass and just over two months later he’s canter pirouetting and working towards piaffe. That seems a lot of advanced collection for a horse that was supposedly in shockingly dire condition a couple months ago, especially if you’re making serious welfare accusations.

There was something on the new rider’s posts congratulating herself for her amazing riding that said something about “missed deadlines” and a “lack of communication” at the old training place (I guess MD’s) but I can’t seem to find it now. Interesting that this is all coming out / they’re suddenly selling Olaf when she needs money for Tyler’s horse she’s taken the ride over on. If the welfare thing is true, they’ve known for ages.

The photo comparison choice is a bit odd — when and where is that photo of Tyler’s horse looking glossy and thick from? Was he in that condition when he went to Milly’s? I remember him looking tense, tight, and not particularly well muscled on arrival (and like someone has rushed his training at some point). The chestnut’s hip does look bad but I agree with the person who said it’s a funny angle to photograph from and there don’t seem to be any more photos. Olaf I think has struggled with injury recently I think, so isn’t looking as well-conditioned as he once was. The pig eye doesn’t help with him looking relaxed in movements.

Seems odd all round on both sides though I suppose more will come out. I think it sounds like Milly perhaps got in way over her head in multiple ways — yardwork for one person and also financially with syndicates — but I don’t think I can take what the other side at face value either. I’m not sure the GFM is scammy or nefarious, I think whatever has happened with these other horses she’s just young and emotional and very attached to the horse and doing anything she can to keep him.
 
AandK said:
One question I have is, how on earth can she get away with only refunding donations above £25? They will make up the bulk of donations, so it seems bang out of order to me!
Click to expand...
Anyone who goes to donate can read for themselves what she says on the gfm about using the money for her own purposes like buying rugs / physio treatments / content creating. I would personally see it as grifting and would find a more deserving cause for my money, others think it's fair play that even the more wealthy amongst us are obtaining tens of thousands of pounds to pay for their luxuries by writing a sob story instead of working like us mere mortals. Same with the gfm for the vet bills which she created previously. Most people accept that if they have animals there is a possibility that they will need veterinary treatment and that they will have to have insurance or find a way to pay out of their own pocket. However, it's legal and certainly with in the gfm regulations to beg for money if you don't want to pay your own bills. If you have a lovely persona on social media, or even a persona on social media (like a certain vet who should not be named on the forum) then there a plenty of people who will give money even if they are in a worse financial position than the beggar 🤷‍♀️ .


stangs said:
last I checked, owners do the owning, they don’t start becoming the riders themselves.
Click to expand...
They definitely do. Many pro riders are part owners of the horses they ride. They may also be owners / part owners of horses that other pro's ride. Some are the breeder of the horse. There's definitely a good percentage of owners who do or did ride and are more than just financially invested in the horses they own.
 
groat said:
Yes, I found it odd that Tyler said that the horse (Jagger? Jaeger? Ja(e)g(g)erbomb? They all seem to call it different things) was in such dire emaciated condition and “an appalling state” in that photo (which was taken post-transport at the new place in Europe, and while the topline is poor and the horse looks undermuscled it doesn’t look emaciated?) — yet within a few rides the new rider, Olaf’s majority owner, was doing canter half-pass and just over two months later he’s canter pirouetting and working towards piaffe. That seems a lot of advanced collection for a horse that was supposedly in shockingly dire condition a couple months ago, especially if you’re making serious welfare accusations.

There was something on the new rider’s posts congratulating herself for her amazing riding that said something about “missed deadlines” and a “lack of communication” at the old training place (I guess MD’s) but I can’t seem to find it now. Interesting that this is all coming out / they’re suddenly selling Olaf when she needs money for Tyler’s horse she’s taken the ride over on. If the welfare thing is true, they’ve known for ages.

The photo comparison choice is a bit odd — when and where is that photo of Tyler’s horse looking glossy and thick from? Was he in that condition when he went to Milly’s? I remember him looking tense, tight, and not particularly well muscled on arrival (and like someone has rushed his training at some point). The chestnut’s hip does look bad but I agree with the person who said it’s a funny angle to photograph from and there don’t seem to be any more photos. Olaf I think has struggled with injury recently I think, so isn’t looking as well-conditioned as he once was. The pig eye doesn’t help with him looking relaxed in movements.

Seems odd all round on both sides though I suppose more will come out. I think it sounds like Milly perhaps got in way over her head in multiple ways — yardwork for one person and also financially with syndicates — but I don’t think I can take what the other side at face value either. I’m not sure the GFM is scammy or nefarious, I think whatever has happened with these other horses she’s just young and emotional and very attached to the horse and doing anything she can to keep him.
Click to expand...

LZ has also been seeking an investor to allow her to buy out the other half of TB's horse so she can keep the ride on him, which is ironically an almost identical situation to MD with Olaf. So coincidence that she now quite aggressively wants to release the money she has tied up in Olaf? Who knows.

It all sounds VERY messy and if nothing else I'm very relieved I'm not tied up in this sort of world!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top