Yarmouth

The Horsemens' Group was iirc set up when the Jockey Club etc split off into the HRA etc etc last year or the year before. it's a loose conglomeration of the NTF, the ROA, and iirc the Jockeys' professional body, to form a united working party of those actually dealing with and owning horses, as opposed to the gambling side of the business

Chris I'll email you with a view to getting your ideas into a piece for the RP or maybe The Trainer or the O&B mag - I think your thoughts on this are very interesting and important and I haven't seen anyone else making these points.

In particular:

<< If my trainer is happy to run in these races and so am I the owner, I don't see what it has to do with the big guys in the Al Bahathri club. If prize money increased to where it attracts big yards, all it will do is finish off the small man, also remember if horses are competing for more , trainers will feel they can push their prices up as a reflection. Then this may force me to have one horse instead of two, and it will do the same to many owners. >>

I agree that anything which will have the knock-on effect of keeping small owners and trainers out of the sport is to be deplored. We'd be back to the 30s, only with Arabs instead of aristocrats calling all the shots, and racing reverting to being a sport for the rich. As it is, there are far too many people in the sport these days [imo] treating it as a business. Anyone with a moderate horse in a small yard will remember that the first thing yoru trainers says when you sign on the dotted line is, "Please never expect to make any money out of this, it's a recreation. If you do make money, it's a bonus".

It's unfortunate if some of this thread has got rather personal, but the lip-curling contempt expressed for people who are in racing as a hobby - or training for such people - and are standing up for what they see to be their *own* interests and/or those of their clients has made me for one see red!

Chris has made a very good case for the actions of Dunnett's owners [ditto Kelleway etc] being entirely justified, and far from stupid; and I think Chris Wall in his capacity as leader of the NTF should take all that on board - pronto.
 
Originally posted by Headstrong@Mar 28 2008, 01:32 PM
. As it is, there are far too many people in the sport these days [imo] treating it as a business. Anyone with a moderate horse in a small yard will remember that the first thing yoru trainers says when you sign on the dotted line is, "Please never expect to make any money out of this, it's a recreation. If you do make money, it's a bonus".
Click to expand...
I think it's you that is still inhabiting the dark ages here, HS !!

Racing IS a business - it's always referred to as the racing industry, for starters.

With the current system of betting and bookmakers and the legislation surrounding that area, racing can no longer be viewed as anything else. I know a lot of people still like to view it as a 'sport' but while everyone bar the owner makes money out of racing, in my opinion that attitude is like living in cloud cuckoo land. There's nothing stopping anyone conducting their ownership in a sporting manner but if it can be also done in such a way as to aim to breakeven at worst too, then in my view, that's just common sense.

Many owners run their horses not only because they love racing and all that goes with it but because it is also probably promoting their other businesses and acting as a tax deductible expense. It's why there has now been a VAT deductible scheme in place for the past seven/eight years for those who own racehorses. I don't see that as anything other than a confirmation from the Government that they see ownership as more than just a leisure activity!!

I am not anti anyone, as Chris describes so well above, having a good relationship with their trainer but what's the truest cliche we learn as we grow up? Don't mix business with pleasure! And while you are paying your trainer in excess of £1,000 per month in training fees, it's his living and his (or her) business you are supporting. It's a hard fact that I've seen more trainer/owner relationships fall apart with more acrimony than in any other area of business that I have experience in (and I do have a pretty extensive commercial resume in business other than the farm and stud, thanks). Usually always because they've become good friends and then a wheel has fallen off somewhere along the line.

Your point about trainers saying don't expect to make any money out of this is the equivalent of the same government warning that your investment in stocks and shares may also go down as well as up! Surely if everyone was truly honest no one really goes into owning a horse with any other expectation that the horse is going to win a race or races for them! You don't go and buy a racehorse just to come last - or do you?

Well, maybe you do and your horse is just another means of going to a social event but on the few occasions I've had a horse in training, quite frankly it's there because I want it to win, probably because it will always be a filly and hopefully destined to come back into the broodmare band - because it's business! The fact that I love racing is inherent in my putting such time and effort into the whole enterprise but at the end of the day, the business has to wash its face and that means making a profit!
 
I wear both hats now, as an owner and a breeder. I will never make money at being an owner. I am even thinking of syndicating Bay Hawk so that other people can enjoy going racing with him - and help with the costs. I doubt I will ever make money out of the breeding side either, but I can all but try.

Although Brendan Powell and I get on brilliantly well - I never lose sight of the fact, and thankfully nor does he and I have a business relationship built on trust and honesty. The fact he is a really nice bloke is a bonus too. I run his website for him and he does a great job with my horse. I couldn't be happier with that arrangement. I do get training bills from him as well of course!

In my "real" job I have customers I get on well with too. It helps in the event there is a problem but it's still good to keep a respectable distance.

I am sure 99% of people buy horses hoping they will win, Songsheet but to many that would be the absolute icing on the cake. Sometimes the social side is a really important factor too. It's a great way of meeting like minded people. If the syndicates have a great day out, the horse does OK and the bills are paid then it very often works for so many people.

The whole racing business is one massive melting pot filled with different people with different backgrounds, different expectations and aspirations and different viewpoints. This is part of it's attraction and the reason that any direct action is not made by a few individuals thinking that they can start to make all the difference to a multi billion pound industry by boycotting one race at Yarmouth.
 
I agree that one has to be practical to some extent, and that everyone goes into ownership hoping to have a winner - but the fact of the matter is that MOST horses don't pay their way. How could they? - there can only be one winner of every race, the vast majority never win let alone break even, and it's imperative that trainers make that clear to the starry-eyed first time owner.

Surely what we are arguing here is that there are two factions now involved in owning and training racehorses - those who do it as a business and those involved for fun, who treat it as a leisure activity. Different trainers cater for these markets; and in some ways their interests are NOT compatible. Quite a few trainers I know at the lower/social levels aren't making any money at all yet - they have to supplement their income with things like box driving etc, and the wife running another business. And the huge disparity in the money available at the top end and the bottom means that buying [or breeding] a horse which can compete with the big boys' under either code is long odds against. Any trainer who doesn't make that clear to a prospective owner isn't doing his job imo

In the smaller yards, and for the 'leisure owner', a friendly and close relationship with the trainer and other owners in the yard - ie the social side of racing - is what it's all about. Certainly all the yards I'm involved in operate like that - lots of parties, lots of fun days out, and lifelong friendships. People who are in it as a business go to the Prescotts or Stoutes, who don't welcome visitors at all, and keep things on a strcitly professional basis.

The alternative does indeed sometimes involve spectacular fallings-out - I've witnessed quite a few myself in the last 18 months! But if THAT is the involvement people want, and an awful lot do, then it's not for others to condemn or despise it. Or try to eradicate it.
 
From the "You Couldn't Make It Up" department, courtesy of the Racing Post:

"YARMOUTH is likely to have to be baled out by the BHA to meet the prize-money levels advertised for its next fixture.

The Northern Racing-owned track was not scheduled to race again until April 28, but this month it successfully bid for one of six upcoming fixtures handed back to the BHA by Great Leighs and will now race on the evening of April 18.

As it was already advertised in the Racing Calendar, the fixture must now be staged with those prize-money levels intact, and if, as seems likely, the Yarmouth executive is unable to find the money, then the BHA development fund will be used to make up the shortfall."
Click to expand...

Yes, that's right. A bid is made for something, bidder can't/won't come up with the money, then gets bailed out by the BHA.

Nice work if you can get it.
 
Be interesting to see if they do come up with the money, Venusian. I wonder how much the "shortfall" is?

It would be great PR for Yarmouth/ Northern Racing if they did the right thing wouldn't it.
 
I would contend that racing is all about Owners! You can have trainers, breeders, stable staff and jockeys but if you don't have owners willing and able to pay for the above, you have jack sh*t. [/QUOTE]
Don't forget the people who put up most of the prize money, the punters. Without them as well as the owners there would be no racing. Owners get a raw deal in this country, note anytime they put a prize money league in the Racing Post, Britains always near the bottom.
We've got a great product, non stop racing and 2 dedicated racing channels (how many sports have that) but paltry prize money, there's something wrong somewhere. How many races would you have to win to break even at the Yarmouth rate last Monday, about 12 a year, it's laughable.
Where's all this money from the inconvenience of 48 hour declarations and how much is it? Does anyone know?
 
richard[/i]@Mar 26 2008 said:
For the time being I remain open minded on the issue fwiw, although my instinct is always towards action when a stance needs to be taken. I can't help but feel though that the burden of loss is falling disproportionately on those least able to absorb it, and something that was more equally distributed might garner more universal support
Click to expand...
 
Sheikh Mohammed did threaten to take his horses out of the country a few years ago due to the low level of prize money iirc, and the Aga Khan did remove his [tho I'm a bit hazy about the exact reason for that]. As I remember it, more money was directed at the top races to ensure Godolphin kept horses here, which is partly why there is such a disparity. Someone will no doubt be able to give chapter and verse.

We have had a few small trainers retire recently due to poor returns, esp prize money - Charles Cyzer being the latest I think.

Although I agree that having certain races restricted to a certain type of yard - eg fewer than 30 horses, or by aggregate cost of horses etc, would be qa way of addressing the problem, I fear it would fall foul of anti-competition laws: the jobsworths who regulate such things even demanded a race only for bays, following the "greys' only'' race!
 
The Aga Khan removed his horses when his filly Aliysa was disqualified after winning the Oaks as she tested positive in a drug test.
 
Unreal. Top class racing virtually ignored on this forum (see the lack of interest in the Dubai thread) instead we have three pages on the sort of boring arse shite one finds in the Howard Wright column in the RP - ie the bit no fecker reads.
 
Unreal. Yet more dirt racing virtually ignored on this forum (see the lack of interest in the Dubai thread - mind you who's interested in that nibbler racing on sand anyway?) instead we have three pages on the sort of interesting stuff one finds in the Howard Wright column in the RP - ie the one bit any fecker actually involved in the industry always reads.
 
I'll PM you Fudge, but I would seriously advise you to consider carefully what you're putting into the public domain in this case
 
It's true that Fudge made one slightly emotional post (which I'm broadly in agreement with) but am I alone in thinking that his contributions to this thread have been honest and enlightening? I understand where Kathy is coming from but I believe that her opinion is decidedly coloured by previous experience. Owners do theoretically call the shots but as an entity can't be expected to speak for the overall good of racing, since they are such a disparate group. It does take some vision to sort out the ills of racing, and that issue must be dealt with.
 
Originally posted by rorydelargy@Mar 29 2008, 02:33 AM
It's true that Fudge made one slightly emotional post (which I'm broadly in agreement with)
Click to expand...
The only thing I was doing was questioning its wisdom under the circumstances. Otherwise his contribution has been most welcome, but I don't believe it to have been the most judicious. Simple as that. I personally wouldn't have gone into the public record with that, I don't feel it reflects well, but then, that's just my opinion. I do believe there were better ways of handling the whole thing, but I've PM'd Fudge since, and hopefully, will keep my contribution thus :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by rorydelargy@Mar 29 2008, 02:33 AM
I understand where Kathy is coming from but I believe that her opinion is decidedly coloured by previous experience.
Click to expand...
Rory, I don't want the owners to call the shots, I just want them to have sufficient input.

Yes, I have had varied experiences dealing with trainers, but that's where I think my depth of knowledge comes from - if you can call it that? I have owned racehorses for nearly 14 years and I wouldn't let one bad year colour my experience believe me.

I would never put my horse in training with a "high flyer" as I couldn't afford it and I am afraid Fudge's attitude to owner's and smaller trainers may be very true of the very type of people he works for. I hope I am wrong.

I have been to the Andrew Baldings yards, Marcus Tregonings, David Elsworth's etc and whilst the facilities all look very grand and the horses all look well - I know which I personally prefer!

Horses for courses.
 
Originally posted by Colin Phillips@Mar 28 2008, 10:17 AM
........is Best Prospect running?................if not lay Jamie on the odds-on shot!! :D
Click to expand...
And look who's just won at Donny,without Jamie on of course!!
 
Glad someone was paying attention, Arkers.

He travels so well in a race that he looks a decent type, the soft ground and 10f. were ideal, and it was nice to see him given a decent ride for a change. :p :D
 
Back
Top