Online auctions of nominations: Nayef

krizon

krizon

At the Start
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
16,263
Location
Dahn sarf
Turn to the Bloodstock section of the RP online and you'll see that some mare owners are 'delighted' to have paid considerably over the £15K nom fee to NAYEF in an online auction of his services. As in up to £29K. The noms were sold through Chepstows, founded a few years back by a woman who rather excitedly informs us that this means a stallion owner never has to say a definite 'no' to an applicant (previously, make that supplicant).

If I have a mare who's been entirely mediocre in her career, but I want to breed from her, I can go online and bid for a bonk from NAYEF. It's accepted if I go high enough, because everyone wants to max out their boy's potential, of course, and the likelihood that a later refusal will come ("We've looked her record over, and three 4ths in Class 5 is just not good enough") is pretty light.

So, simply because this can and has been done, the Q is, should it be done? Why not have everyone just sell their horse's vital juices to the highest bidders? You'll knock out some nice little mares with rather impoverished owners, but you'll accept some shitty ones with owners who have deeper pockets? Provided you have the dosh, you can outbid for paintings, sculptures, antiques, houses, cars, you name it. But we're now talking about a live creature and the reputation of not just the stallion and his stud, but the breed and the enhancement (or otherwise) of racing.

I don't like to think that this will be a gimmick which will spread, to be honest. I can see how attractive it is to stallion owners, not content with their already handsome fees (even after reluctant reductions), casting their nets wider to increase their income. It tends to reinforce a lurking suspicion I've had that they've never seriously had what's best for the TB at heart, anyway, since many of them recklessly mate their horses to all and sundry, regardless of ability, conformation, and temperament. Making noms available in this fashion treats the animal as even more of a commodity to be traded. The difference is that if you sell a Picasso at auction, it doesn't matter who purchases it. It doesn't affect anything else. But opening up the trade in sperm to whoever can put in the best offer does make a difference - to the breed, to further overproduction of poor stock, and the continuing careless indifference to outcome by stallion owners.

Thoughts, anyone?
 
Of course breeding is a business. I'm not disputing that, having put a great deal into it with Songsheet and another friend for a few years.

I'm asking not whether it's a commodity or not, but whether auctioning to the person with the most dosh is the right thing to do. If I know that a nomination for XYZ is going to be £15,000 but can't get into the nominations process, why should that suddenly be open to my unwonderful mare because I can fork out £25,000 for the same stallion if I participate in an auction? I don't see anything responsible in doing that - we've all been going on and on for years about poor quality stock, overproduction, etc. How does auctioning off the use of a stallion to any old nag help to improve stock and lessen reckless overproduction?
 
Some would argue the counter that it allows lesser breeders access to stallions they may otherwise not get. Better stallion increases the likelihood of better progeny no?
 
The way breeders go about their business over here I can't see it working.
Seems strange that all you have to do is go online to improve your stallions figures.
 
How do people stupid enough to waste tens of thousands on their crap mares get rich enough to waste tens of thousands on their crap mares?
 
as far as I know Nayef was the only one they offered via this online-auction, and they did it last year, too. Shadwell does limit their stallions severely, and even I know a couple of really well-bred, good racemares who they did not not accept. as said on here, I cannot see any owner throwing out that sort of money for a really useless mare, but on the other hand, so many really "useless" horses are bred anyway, so why not some more expensive ones by Nayef ?
 
crazyhorse said:
I cannot see any owner throwing out that sort of money for a really useless mare
Click to expand...

That's what I thought, but I've seen criticism of the size of Sadler's Wells' books even when he was in 6 figures, which you would have thought would be a high enough price to weed out even the most optimistic owners of 'moderate' mares.
 
She wouldn't have got turned down by Coolmore on any sire why not get that mare to Cape Cross or New Approach for the same price it really is crazy
 
crazyhorse said:
as far as I know Nayef was the only one they offered via this online-auction, and they did it last year, too. Shadwell does limit their stallions severely, and even I know a couple of really well-bred, good racemares who they did not not accept. as said on here, I cannot see any owner throwing out that sort of money for a really useless mare, but on the other hand, so many really "useless" horses are bred anyway, so why not some more expensive ones by Nayef ?
Click to expand...

Seems reasonable.

After all, if breeding was restricted to stallions who had won at least 200k in prize money, there would be an improvement in the TB gene pool.
Might be less horses around, but the principle of breeding from only the better males would inevitably improve the breed.

Wouldn't it?
 
We've kind of gone away form Kri's original query .... and thinking about why people would be happy to pay more than the usual going rate for a Nayef nomination.

I have two friends who could not get into him and were told it was because the actual stud (Shadwell) had no more nominations on the books. They had sold a few to the auctioneer, or people who had bought nominations to Nayef had done so, and what they did with them was up to them. Nominations are also often given to relatives and connections of Hamdan. Not getting in had nothing to do with the mare, they loved her pedigree, just so many on waiting list for Nayef.

A bit like ticket touts? :confused:
 
I'd say it was quite a shrewd piece of business. Quite simple really, demand exceeds supply and they've just let market forces ensure they get the best price. Nothing wrong with that imo.
 
Aha, but demand doesn't exceed supply, does it? Why not simply raise the fee and be done with it? I know it's not as if they're (yet) hawking him round on E-bay (surely a matter of time with some nags?), but what's the point in setting a bar, then taking it down when someone offers you a few thousand more? That means that the supply wasn't really that limited or elite. SADLER'S WELLS was a mating machine for several years - there seems to be evidence that at one time he was servicing over 200 mares per season, and certainly over 150 a year. Bearing in mind how long he was at it, that's an awful lot of progeny! No problem as long as you don't mind hardly ever being able to get free from him.

I don't see it as shrewd, so much as manipulative. Create a false ceiling, make your horse appear to be out of your paltry reach, then drop the ceiling entirely and grant your wish provided you can dole out the extra dough. Don't think I like it, for a variety of reasons, but mainly the long-term one.
 
I don't think that's what I'm reading Kri. We will say Nayef is limited to 100 coverings. These people have bought a nomination for 15,000 and are taking a gamble, not much I know, that the other 99 are sold and then they will make a profit if more than 100 people want a Nayef foal.
 
Eh?

I'm up too late and don't quite get what you mean, me old china. Yes, a bunch of breeders have bought noms @ £15K, and a few others have bought noms at considerably more via an auction. You take a gamble with the offspring whether you lob £5K or £500K at the stallion owner - I'll come back to this tomorrow and see if I make sense!
 
well, demand for a specific stallion might well exceed supply, isnt it. as far as I know shadwell limits their stallion to 80 mares, and thats a total, so minus their own, and only so many are "open" for clients.
 
Oh, I see what is meant now, thanks, Crazy. Okay, but the point of having a limited book is just that! You limit the stallion to, as suggested, 100 mares. You book in the 100 and you close the nominations. You don't say, "Oh, but guess what? It's not really a closed book - it's open provided you go through an auction process and give us a load more dosh." I'd be fairly peed-off if I were one of the 100 and thought that the elite use of the stallion wasn't that really - just another marketing ploy to get me to use him, and then find someone with extra cash and a mare who's managed 974530 before being pulled from racing gets to use him, too. Put it this way - were I still to own PLACE THE DUCHESS, still toiling in the lowest rank and trying to get a third placing at age 4, and decide I were rich enough to get her to NAYEF, I could do that through an auction. I wouldn't get her to him otherwise. Now how would that necessarily enhance the quality of the stock presented to racecourses? Songsheet and I would never have bred from her as she is now, and never overbreed her to a stallion like NAYEF anyway, but there are some mutts who would, just to get that high grade of sire for their mare. Do you see now what I mean about not liking the idea, and hoping it's a gimmick that won't be rolled out across stallion ranks?
 
No Kri, it is not Shadwell that are selling the nominations, it is people, or the agent, who has bought them, like everyone else, for the original fee and are gambling on him selling out (which he does) so they can offer the shares they bought earlier, at whatever price people are willing to pay.

Hence my tongue in cheek comment about ticket touts! ;)

Nayef def limited to 80 coverings and lots of Dubai relatives have shares in him which are included in that amount so lessens those offered to the public. Shadwell is a huge famly and my connection there says that the coverings offered to the public can be as low as 40. They are also picky about his mares wanting to give him best possible chance. BUT, they have let agency buy a few shares (anyone know how many?) and the agent then has to sell to make any profit. The agency is rumoured to be connected to the family somehow, whether it is because a family member is selling his yearly nominations or not I do not know.

This is not anything new really, in the old days of stallion syndication on large scale, (think Mtoto), those who bought shares in the stallion were selling their nominations off in Horse and Hound at profit.

Might be a clever ploy by Shadwell as mentioned. Gets a lot of publicity they do not pay for, makes Nayef a known hankered after commodity and the probablilty is that those who are willing to pay extra could not get in to him due to demand and have decent mares anyway or could not afford this fee.

My friend was bidding and he was wanting to use him for two mares who both cost a fair amount and were rated 90 on track. Did not win a nomination and could not get into Nayef through Shadwell, he has a waiting list. Was fully prepared to pay extra as figured if it was the only way to secure one of the 80 nominations it was worth it to him.

I think this kind of things goes on all the time, but not through a public auction so we do not hear about it. Connections do auction nominations off at charity dos and we have bought a private nomination for a stallion from Lady Lloyd Webber who did not wish to use it that season and had bought it earlier in the year. The stallion was 'sold out' so we think we got lucky. Sadly the colt foal died as a yearling, so we didn't!
 
Last edited:
So if a person can just buy up a block of nominations to any limited stallions (which in itself sounds far from in the spirit of having an elite sire) and flog them off on the free market later, that's a practice which looks sharp to me, and which doesn't in any way enhance that stallion's reputation or the breed per se. You say it goes on 'all the time' behind the scenes, so why bother to advertise 'limited book', why bother to even ask about the provenance of mares at all? Just let agents come in, buy up a bunch, and know that they're going to flog them off exactly like a ticket tout, as you said.

I don't think that nominations should be auctioned or raffled off, either, like a day at the races or a crystal decanter. This devalues the essence of horse-breeding and it still means that whoever wins the nom can use it on a rubbish mare or make a profit flogging it off to someone with any type of mare.

We go on and on about improving the quality of the breed and how there's been so much overproduction from poor mares. Heads of breeding associations have bemoaned the overage for years now, asking for mare herds to be culled. Nobody asked the stallion owners to put down their dodgy ones which chuck out a wretched creature every fifth or sixth time. Nobody got onto their hindlegs and suggested that even 100 mares a year might be a bit greedy. Stallion owners appear to be viewed as little gods, and now they appear to be hand-in-glove with their jolly chums, the bloodstock agents, in letting them go and make a few bob on the side by knowingly flogging them nominations they know they won't use themselves.

I'm not against studs giving mare owners mates' rates when the owners have been loyal to their stallions or presented them with several per season. That's fine - it's a bit like a loyalty discount in a store. But I am against this sort of insider trading and where a third party insinuates himself into the dealing, making the claim of a restricted book laughable, and just touting the horse's services for his own profit. I don't know how the TBA thinks that this is in any way in its best interests. But its seems to be a craven organisation which has averted its gaze from seeing some of its buddy network doing stuff like this, of seeing overproduced foals and mares slaughtered and saying it doesn't happen, of pointing the finger of overproduction at mare owners (who can only breed them once a year, if they take, not 100 and however many 'extras' can be wheedled), and providing pretty much nothing in the way of support to its members for a fairly high annual fee.
 
I'm not fond of ticket touts either, and see your point.

But I still maintain that Nayef does have a limited book, much smaller than many stallions, the auction does not add to his numbers, and I think that there is a great probability that the mare owners who can afford to pay upwards of £30,000 for a stud fee to him have decent mares, not nags.

It is not very dignified though. However it may well enhance his popularity, you know how people want what they think they cannot have!

As to the TBA ..... well ......
 
I have to agree with your knowledge re NAYEF, Ising, as you do know the stud and I don't. It's not so much NAYEF or the stud per se, it's the idea of auctioning off noms after the elite book has closed. I'd feel the same about any stallion whose owners claimed that he would only serve so many mares at £xxx, but then sold nominations to agents in the knowledge that they would tout them. I think that's a breeding loophole that should be plugged in these days of unrestricted use of poor stallions and poor mares. I think the TBA is pathetically toothless and just picks on the smallest and weakest targets for its campaigns. It certainly wouldn't ever stand up and say "Hey, no matter what your horse won, he's patently unsound and will pass that on, so you have to state that on your advertising."

If I had tried to simply do a bit of breeding for myself, without Songsheet and Paul Thorman's support, I would have NO idea at all about stallions who left their careers with significant faults. This 'ooh, he throws a stinker every now and then' may well come through the bitter experience of mare owners who've suffered creating the stinkers, but has that stopped the sire continuing to be marketed? No, of course not. The TBA has never once looked at the results and then decided that enough's enough of the cripples and crap. But pick on mare owners? Sure, why not?
 
The TBA struggle to get and keep members. Many are elderly and when they die no youngsters take up membership to replace. Membership is down this season due to recession, many leaving mares empty have ceased membership. Lots of lapsed. I see the need for the TBA and have met a lot of lovely people thru them but will be interesting to see what future holds. Could be a lot more proactive, hands tied due to political correctness. :whistle:
 
They weren't politically correct when they allowed unbridled criticisms of their very members, though, were they? As in the mare owners who seemed to be blamed for overproduction and the low quality of monster-size fields. It wasn't until the Irish govt. stopped stallion subsidies that that particular association suddenly got shirty about overproducing, which has no doubt led to the 66% reduction now being hypocritically bemoaned in their mares. Sometimes, you need to be careful what you wish for, and the ITBA seems to have the brains of a gnat in this regard.
 
Back
Top