Prize Money

[Flame]

Must say I agree with some of the point made in this link,

http://www.racingpost.com/blog/hors...e-derby-really-need-to-be-worth-1-25m/648002/

People say Prize Money is poor in racing, and it should be better, but maybe they should be toning it down at the top, and entering more at lesser stages, after all he makes a good point about the Derby and its future value.

Thoughts ?

 

[Hamm]

I disagree, especially with his 'Ownership should be profitable for everyone' comment.

British racing needs prize funds at the top level to be competitive with similar level contests around the world.

Having banded races worth more than they currently are will only encourage more of the dross. Reduce the fixture list drastically by cutting out the dross, and you will have an increase in quality and average prize money.

 

[Sheikh]

I don't think trinning the top would make much difference, drop in the ocean ? has anyone done the maths.

Cantoris will have apoplexy if he sees that. He wants to ban all Group races and handicaps under 65 and channel the funds to 'mid tier' racing which is sustainable.

 

[Shadow Leader]

I'm with Hamm on this one I'm afraid Flame, even as owner of animals running in bumpers for 3 grand!

 

[Sheikh]

I disagree, especially with his 'Ownership should be profitable for everyone' comment.

It should at least give a reasonable chance of recouping costs

British racing needs prize funds at the top level to be competitive with similar level contests around the world.

It needs to have competitive levels within Europe, an agreement could be reached with the relevant racing authorities.

Having banded races worth more than they currently are will only encourage more of the dross.

Do you think people will go out to buy more crap horses ?

Reduce the fixture list drastically by cutting out the dross, and you will have an increase in quality and average prize money.

You are in favour therefore of removing owners who are unfortunate enough to have crap horses from racing . Reducing the no.s of crap horses from racing does just that, it does not create 'an increase in quality'

 

[Harbinger]

How much of the Derby prize money comes from the central pool in the first place (i.e. not from the entry fees and sponsorship)?

 

[Hamm]

It should at least give a reasonable chance of recouping costs

If you have a horse with a low level of ability, tough luck - there is no way you should expect to recoup your outlay!

It needs to have competitive levels within Europe, an agreement could be reached with the relevant racing authorities.

No need for an agreement, imo - UK can see what other prize levels are and judge how they compare against them.

Do you think people will go out to buy more crap horses ?

No, not at all, but with a higher level of prize money for lower level racing, the risk/reward ratio gets altered in a damaging way as there's little risk as you would still recoup most of your money even if your horse turns out to be of quite a poor level.

You are in favour therefore of removing owners who are unfortunate enough to have crap horses from racing . Reducing the no.s of crap horses from racing does just that, it does not create 'an increase in quality'

Not sure how you extrapolated that from my earlier point.

Of course removing 'crap' horses/races increases quality!!

 

[Sheikh]

If you have a horse with a low level of ability, tough luck - there is no way you should expect to recoup your outlay!

A horse that wins should be able to recoup is training costs. Bad horses create as much employment as good horses. They also cost the same.

No need for an agreement, imo - UK can see what other prize levels are and judge how they compare against them.

As the article said the prizemoney for the top races isn't really an issue anyway so as long as the Derby (for example) was in the same ball park prizemoney wise as say the Irish Derby than it would remain the priority target for the top three yr olds and their owners who are more interested in making stallions than the prizemoney.

No, not at all, but with a higher level of prize money for lower level racing, the risk/reward ratio gets altered in a damaging way as there's little risk as you would still recoup most of your money even if your horse turns out to be of quite a poor level.

Nobody is incentivised by breaking even. if I have 6 horse and three are 'shit' and three are 'good' I am investing enough money in the game to expect my lesser lights to go some way to paying for the employment they are providing should they manage to get their heads in front.

Of course removing 'crap' horses/races increases quality!!

Ok I understand what your saying now. I was thinking in terms of the owners you have just banished trying to replace their horses with better horses when there are always the same amount of good, bad and indifferent horses to go around.

 

[Shadow Leader]

Having banded races worth more than they currently are will only encourage more of the dross.

Do you think people will go out to buy more crap horses ?

Fairly obviously the answer would have to be no; however it does contribute to horses that have proven that they aren't much cop being kept in training for longer as there are opportunities for them to run in, IMO.

 

[Cantoris]

Cantoris will have apoplexy if he sees that. He wants to ban all Group races and handicaps under 65 and channel the funds to 'mid tier' racing which is sustainable.

"Apoplexy" - now that's a big word for a simpleton like me.

I agree with the blog to drop the Derby. Will the drop mean people go for the French or German Derby instead? No.

What about the QE II worth £140k to the winner and a big handicap worth £100k. I'd drop both but the latter more than the former. Ireland has a heap of €75k handicaps which will be as well supported if they were €40k handicaps. Prizemoney in Ireland got carried away at this sort of level and needs correcting IMO (which is well known to all on this forum!!).

Dross - Captain Bondi falls into this category and his owners now just want him to run well and if he can, win. They have no interest in prizemoney and all it will do is keep him in training after the current funds run out. He shoudln't be running for €5k.

Mid-tier - We have been lucky to have Kimberlite King win three races and be placed in a Grade 3. Yet his total prizemoney won of €30k is well short of the amount put into him of €80-90k. Lads that do have a horse of decent ability(from winning a bumper/maiden hurdle to Grade 3 level), like KK, should be able to cover their costs by winning two races a season. That means keeping the mid tier prizemoney up.

While this approach is not held by a lot of people on the forum, I think it rewards those that want to keep a decent horse in training and asks those with a poor horse whether they should be racing a horse or if it's just a hobby for them. Of course you will get horses that started off at the bottom of the handicap and ended up winning a Champion hurdle rolleyes but up to the owners to decide if they want to keep a horse that is uneconomical in training. At the moment, prizemoney is not low enough for the dross to be considered uneconomical.....you just need to find a clever trainer!!

 

[Shadow Leader]

With respect Cantoris, owners really are being unrealistic if they expect to make a profit on having a horse in training; many wouldn't even break even. It's pretty much rule # 1 in the 'getting involved with racehorse ownership' stakes; don't expect to recoup your losses or you will more than likely only end up disappointed. It is only really a very small number of horses than don't prove to be uneconomical to keep in training, even when winning. Prize money levels would have to be increased considerably to make owning racehorses anything other than uneconomical for most bar the lucky few.

That said I do agree that there is too much dross level racing about but, as my vastly intellectually superior other half keeps telling me, "someone has to be the worst at something as well as someone being the best at it!"

 

[Songsheet]

While we all know that you shouldn't have a horse in training and expect to make money out of it, it is essential for anyone having a HIT that the possibility that they can do so exists.

If you remove that optimism, you basically completely exclude the underlying ethos of the whole of racing - that of the gambe. By that, I don't mean just the punter going to have £5 on a horse, I mean the gamble that every racehorse owner (and breeder, trainer lass/lad come to that) enters into when they pay the purchase price and training fees of their chosen animal. We all want to have our horse win after all and in reality, it's not just the winning that counts, is it? It it were, then there wouldn't be any prize money, merely a trophy for every winner and everyone would be happy. Would they feck....

Nope, I do believe that we are getting to the stage as John Gosden brilliantly says where racing is on the verge of being unable to trade its way out of the enormous deficit it is creating and we had all better realise that sharpish. If prize money at the lower and mid tier can be improved, then more people will be attracted here again to have HITs and the whole quality of the sport would improve.

 

[Sheikh]

I'm pretty liberal on this issue, If people want to race shite if they pay the price than they should be allowed. I do however agree that the prize money should be divided on merit i.e a sliding scale as you go up the handicap. It's not right that the Kimberlite boys having had a 'HIT'with a three time winner and Grade 3 placed can't brake even.

 

[Hamm]

I wouldn't disagree with your last point, in general.

However, Kimberlite King looks very lightly raced, with only 8 runs in 3 seasons; I would suggest that, rather than poor prize money, would be the main reason for a current loss. There's always the chance though that as he's lightly raced, there's plenty more improvement to come where the net loss can be clawed back.

 

[montyracing2]

My view would be to avoid competing with a 'few' foreign races, if owners wish to spend the increased cost in transport, good luck to them.

I have much more sympathy with the not so well off enthusiastic owner. So why not run a subsidy scheme where a horse that wins two races (on turf!) receives an end of season bonus, equating to the difference between the horse in question's winnings and the annual cost for training.

Complications arise with mult-ownership and syndicates but bonus might be payable on the 'first' principle.

MR2

 

[Cantoris]

I only use Kimberlite King and Captain Bondi to show the difference I see between the types of horses out there. One that should have the opportunity to break even and one that should not be subsidised. KK is a slow maturing horse and indeed if he was more straight forward might have won another €30-40k but still not cover his cost. What bugs me a little is that he will run in a beginners chase (against a Mullins hotpot and a few more) for €10k when a horse rated 40 to 50lbs lower than him races for €7k in a handicap hurdle. That just does not make sense to me at all.

Shads, you're right that no owner should go into racing to break even but as Song says, it is the hope factor that if you throw a few darts at the board, that one at least has the chance to break even if it's any good. That's all I ask for.

 

[Flame]

I only use Kimberlite King and Captain Bondi to show the difference I see between the types of horses out there. One that should have the opportunity to break even and one that should not be subsidised. KK is a slow maturing horse and indeed if he was more straight forward might have won another €30-40k but still not cover his cost. What bugs me a little is that he will run in a beginners chase (against a Mullins hotpot and a few more) for €10k when a horse rated 40 to 50lbs lower than him races for €7k in a handicap hurdle. That just does not make sense to me at all.

Shads, you're right that no owner should go into racing to break even but as Song says, it is the hope factor that if you throw a few darts at the board, that one at least has the chance to break even if it's any good. That's all I ask for.

Its an interesting point, however one may argue that your horse rated 50lb higher could compete in better prize money affairs if you desired him to, therefore not really an issue.

However the fact is there are too many races of a certain nature and that's not at the bottom. The sickening thing is there are too many 30k added listed races with 5 or 6 runners and normally close together.

By scrapping a lot of un needed races of higher class they can cut down the fixture list and produce more prize money throughout the list.

What annoyed me was Monday. I entered Vanadium for a race at Kempton on the basis of the prize money being £2,200 to the winner, followed by £600 to the 2nd and £400 to the 3rd. However the BHA decided to divide the race.

The prize money was changed to £1,600 to the winner, £350 2nd and £200 to 3rd in both divisions.

Were the entry fee's we had paid subsidised to account for the cut in prize money no, so basically what we had paid to enter had been cut, because they wanted two divisions.

My horse did not need a divide to get a run, he was fine to race in it, so owners of the original 14 who could have run are ripped off. In a way I'm glad we came 4th, as the prize money we should have won wasn't what was quoted or correct. If courses and the BHA want races divided they should honour the full prize money, otherwise don't divide, that's my opinion.

Money at the bottom is a joke, yet you get about double for winning a 0-70 as winning a 0-55, can someone tell me how a horse rated 55, to a horse rated 70 equates to double the value, its so false !!

Also look at some of the feature races on offer for good prize money and you will see hardly any runners, the fact is if there are less runners in races with money and more in without surely it shows a bit of leveeling out needs to be done.

I'm not talking of making radical changes, but a set prize money scale would be better i,e 20k for winning class 1 listed, 15k class 2, 9k class 3, 6k class 4, 5k class 5, 3k class 6, 2k class 7

That way people would know where they stand.

Your point Cantoris doesn't really make sense, your trainer charges you the same fees as any other horse, and the fact could be you spent more on your horse, but you are at a luxury to have a horse competing at a decent level who has achieved a decent rating. If you have achieved that rating only making x amount of prize money, surely the buck rests with maybe not actually running him in the right races so you could have won more ?

If a trainer can make a good return off a lesser rated horse, then surely well done the trainer for making it pay for that horse.

Prize money in Ireland is a lot better than in England and the cost of training is lower, the BHA really need to look at the racing calendar and look to see how many horses fill each criteria and so on, then produce races to match the figures.

If there are roughly 100 - 200 listed / group 3 7f - 1m types in training is there really any need for 78 conditions, listed and group 3 races over 7f - 8f over the course of the season, of which none are fully entered or declared and have an average of 6 - 8 runners. These races take up a lot of prize money which could be better spent.

As for the 4 runner group 1, that was a joke, but then so are the racing planning committee.

 

[Gamla Stan]

I've no idea how people put up with the prize money at the bottom end of racing, they either have deep pockets or are too blind to see that their animals won't cut it at the bottom. Trainers haven't cut their fees/travel costs in the recession and there's no way in hell I'd get involved in another 50 odd rated animal, it's the quickest way to the poorhouse ever. They all have their turn in winning but you do far far more in training fees and entries etc than you ever get back in prize money.

 

[Shadow Leader]

Of course every owner has their hopes that their horse will turn out to be very decent; I've listened to commentaries in my head of my horses winning the Gold Cup, RSA Chase, Hennessy.....! But the simple fact is that it is only the very lucky few who recoup their expenditure, let alone make money from them.

I do agree that at lower levels the prize money is poor but surely the hope is that your horse will improve to be able to win at a decent level and surely the only reason people run racehorses isn't purely for the prize money? I can't say that I had any second thoughts over running in bumpers worth less than £1500 to the winner after division, I was happy to get the run.

 

[Sheikh]

I only use Kimberlite King and Captain Bondi to show the difference I see between the types of horses out there. One that should have the opportunity to break even and one that should not be subsidised. KK is a slow maturing horse and indeed if he was more straight forward might have won another €30-40k but still not cover his cost. What bugs me a little is that he will run in a beginners chase (against a Mullins hotpot and a few more) for €10k when a horse rated 40 to 50lbs lower than him races for €7k in a handicap hurdle. That just does not make sense to me at all.

Shads, you're right that no owner should go into racing to break even but as Song says, it is the hope factor that if you throw a few darts at the board, that one at least has the chance to break even if it's any good. That's all I ask for.

Thinking about KK, he's obviously more than covered his training fees for the year and the Lads investment in him as an asset has increased in value so it's probably a situation that most people would be happy with.

 

[krizon]

Here we go again. Right, reduce the fixture list to cut out the dross, per Hamm: that leaves you with 2,284 races (as per this year's list) from Class 1 thru 4. I don't know how many of the c. 17,000 nags in training are NH and which are Flat, but let's make things simple and cut it in two. That's 8,500 Flat horses from age 2 to geriatric in training. Assume that the majority of them fall into the now culled Class 5, 6 and 7 races, that should leave you with (again, this is a very rough guess) around 2,500 'quality' animals to compete for those 2,284 'quality' races. Do those maths look right? The whole thing looks totally shot to shite to me - after deducting NH tracks, I'd say that what was left of the Flat venues would be owned by Jockey Club estates and Goodwood. You could kiss adieu to Arena and Northern Racing's flat courses, since they probably only throw about a dozen Listeds among the lot of them per year. Looks like bath water, baby, out with the.

 

[Cantoris]

Your point Cantoris doesn't really make sense, your trainer charges you the same fees as any other horse, and the fact could be you spent more on your horse, but you are at a luxury to have a horse competing at a decent level who has achieved a decent rating. If you have achieved that rating only making x amount of prize money, surely the buck rests with maybe not actually running him in the right races so you could have won more ?

And that's why I said you need a clever trainer if you have dross whereby it starts at 80 and ends up being 120. I would suggest AJ Martin or Charles Byrnes would do a fine job. I would never give them a horse of mine. The point is, you shouldn't have to pull the wool over the eyes of the handicapper with a good horse, there should be enough money for everyone. We picked up less for coming third in a grade three than if we won a handicap. We just have a difference of opinion.

 

[Flame]

And that's why I said you need a clever trainer if you have dross whereby it starts at 80 and ends up being 120. I would suggest AJ Martin or Charles Byrnes would do a fine job. I would never give them a horse of mine. The point is, you shouldn't have to pull the wool over the eyes of the handicapper with a good horse, there should be enough money for everyone. We picked up less for coming third in a grade three than if we won a handicap. We just have a difference of opinion.

So why not run in a handicap against lesser opposition or drop into a conditions or listed event ?

 

[Cantoris]

So why not run in a handicap against lesser opposition or drop into a conditions or listed event ?

Because his schooling at home was not good enough to put him into a handicap and the grade 3 was on his favoured soft ground in a small field which would suit his suspect jumping. But they are specifics about him that you wouldn't be aware of as we are privy to his schooling which others are not. The main point is that he was rated in the 110s and the handicap was an 80-102 so we couldn't run in the handicap anyway. I don't have a problem with handicaps for 110 rated horses being worth reasonable money, it's the 80-95 or 80-102 that I have the problem with.

 

[krizon]

In other words, you don't really have a problem with the horses' ratings, Cantoris, you have a problem with the way prize money is handled (going by your example). I don't think that horses rated from 80 thru 102 can be called 'dross' by any stretch of the imagination. There are a lot of owners who'd love their horses to reach those levels! You've been fortunate enough to have a horse or horses at higher levels, which is nice, and should be rewarded appropriately, of course. I can also see your argument as to why your G3 third place should have netted you a better prize than first place for a handicapper. But that doesn't make the handicapper a lousy animal - far from it: he may well go on for years knocking in prize money and rewarding his connections with some serious dosh over time. He represents the sort of horse which racegoers love to follow for his consistency and reliability.