Back to Pedigree Query
It is currently Sat Dec 16, 2017 11:53 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 214 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 15  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: mares
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 10:35 pm 
Offline
Restricted Stakes Winner

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:52 pm
Posts: 960
Jolt,

If you are talking about how to identify mares, if I see a mare who is bred reasonably well, has run multiple years, won a $150,000 +, although maybe not stakes, and has produced some winners, say, 4 foals, three winners, 5 foals 4 winners, etc., I want to take a hard look, even if they are not stakes winning foals. These mares are often available because they haven't produced a stakes horse.

She may not have produced stakes winners, but here's the deal, almost nowhere is any race won easily. With a few obvious exceptions of tiny fair meets, obscure tracks, etc., if a horse wins a race, it's a big deal. To win, they have accomplished more than half the breed has.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 5:56 am 
Offline
Grade II Winner
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 5:33 pm
Posts: 1421
All of what you say makes sense. I'm wondering what a comparison between two business models could be constructed where under case 1 for a Breeder, or case 2 for a Race model you compare two scenarios:

A. The Typical model - where high priced mares (marginally sound) are bred to high priced stallions (also marginally sound) produce a few high priced runners and a whole lot of losers (of races and money) who are neither sound nor of much value.

B. The Hard Knocker Model - where lower priced (but sound, competitive) horses are bred to lower priced (sound, competitive) stallions and raced in a manner intended to encourage a long career, which would be, in the end, profitable. I would assume in the hard knocker model that certain 'out of favor' but nonetheless solid bloodlines would be preserved/enhanced through the process.

Part of the problem in the Hard Knocker scenario for those who breed and those who break/train/race is that the ability of the lower end, consistent horse quickly loses value and becomes 'cheap' in the public eye, and the only races that they can run in they risk losing the considerable up front investment for a pittance (45k claiming tag). So as the claiming discussion above noted, the claiming process may be 'cheapening' the perception of the value of horses in the lower classes because they are so readily available as cheap commodities.

Scenario A has the high investment, high risk, high reward drive requiring deep pockets just to get in, and the potential to lose millions.

Scenario B has lower investment, lower risk, but (perhaps?) equal probability of long term profitability, but less of a chance of the 'home run' that everyone wants to hit. In this scenario - getting quality work at a lower day rate would be critical. Strong state bred programs (long term) would be great assets to support this model. I emphasize long term because it takes so long in the hard knocker model to start actually earning something, while the Typical model you can sell a weanling and possibly make a profit. So those in states where the state bred program is struggling (Tx?), you have no real chance to get the edge that the hard knockers need to make a profit.

I would be interested in those experienced with both A and B models. I can assure you that my business plans have only been of the type B model.

_________________
Run the race - the one that's really worth winning.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:33 pm 
Offline
Leading Sire

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 5:18 pm
Posts: 3519
Location: Yorktown, VA
I looked at the top 5 stallons in the BloodHorse stallion registry and find that winner from runners ratio is below 50%:

Maria Mon 47%

Distorted Humor 57%

Giants Causeway 39%

Malibu Moon 49%

Smart Strike 49%

to top that off only about half of these stalliosn get ever race. And these satlllions should be getting the best mmares in the world.

So if I breed my best mare to Malibu moon I have less than a 30% chance of getting winner.

If I breed to Giants Causway for $100k I have less than a 20% chance of getting a winner..

I should be committed

griff

griff

_________________
"We has met the enemy and he is us" [Pogo]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: g
PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 6:35 pm 
Offline
Restricted Stakes Winner

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:52 pm
Posts: 960
Griff,
Well said.

The point, Jolt, is that you really don't have less of a chance hitting the home run with the HKer model, or, more correctly stated, you may not have a better chance of the home run horse with high priced stallions/mares, on average.

The only difference is in the sale ring, obviously. On the race track, not so much.

One of the reasons we see high priced offspring in the big races sometimes, is that their owners can afford to campaign them in that way.

May I remind us all of the Green Monkey?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:08 am 
Offline
Grade III Winner

Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 12:12 pm
Posts: 1024
Joltman wrote:
B. The Hard Knocker Model - where lower priced (but sound, competitive) horses are bred to lower priced (sound, competitive) stallions and raced in a manner intended to encourage a long career, which would be, in the end, profitable. I would assume in the hard knocker model that certain 'out of favor' but nonetheless solid bloodlines would be preserved/enhanced through the process.

Part of the problem in the Hard Knocker scenario for those who breed and those who break/train/race is that the ability of the lower end, consistent horse quickly loses value and becomes 'cheap' in the public eye, and the only races that they can run in they risk losing the considerable up front investment for a pittance (45k claiming tag). So as the claiming discussion above noted, the claiming process may be 'cheapening' the perception of the value of horses in the lower classes because they are so readily available as cheap commodities.
. . .

Scenario B has lower investment, lower risk, but (perhaps?) equal probability of long term profitability, but less of a chance of the 'home run' that everyone wants to hit. In this scenario - getting quality work at a lower day rate would be critical. Strong state bred programs (long term) would be great assets to support this model. (emphasis added) I emphasize long term because it takes so long in the hard knocker model to start actually earning something, while the Typical model you can sell a weanling and possibly make a profit. So those in states where the state bred program is struggling (Tx?), you have no real chance to get the edge that the hard knockers need to make a profit.



When I look at entries in Pennsylvania, there seems to be a very high percentage of owner/trainers, which gets past the day rate for those owners. But it still is an issue for many breeders, who say they would be owners if they COULD afford the day rate.

If you breed the hard-knocking horse, you either all but give it to a trainer/owner & hope for the best with regard to breeder's awards, or race it yourself - if you can afford to do that.

Some people are pretty good at putting together partnerships to defray those day-rates (which unfortunately aren't any lower for hard-knockers than for Scenario A horses.)

Maybe instead, breeders should "partner" together to have a "stable co-op" & hire a trainer, the breeders to pay a salary & actual costs of hay, grain, grooms, vets, exercise riders, etc., and the trainer to get a percentage of the purses, in addition to the salary. But finding a quality trainer interested in that scenario would probably be akin to the search for the holy grail . . .


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:16 am 
Offline
Breeder's Cup Contender
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:04 am
Posts: 1765
Location: Pennsylvania
KB Equine, I've thought of the co op idea too. But as you said, trying to find a trainer willing to do that is hard.

winds

_________________
"Always The Horse "



http://stablewindthoroughbred.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 12:30 pm 
Offline
Grade II Winner
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 5:33 pm
Posts: 1421
I like the coop idea. Great way to get support for the little guy/gal.

If I'm a trainer and have a chance to triple the number of horses under my care with a better chance of hitting a home run (and growing my stable/earnings all the more), I think I'm liking that scenario. I bet there are some young, hungry, competent horsemen/women who are trainers who would consider something like that. beats hanging around a barn of 3 horses, two of which are laid up or not yet racing.

what about it Laurie and some of y'all who are out there training?


This is exactly the kind of thing that that state racing associations should be promoting or putting together, instead of sitting around in a meeting and complaining about track owners or medications.

_________________
Run the race - the one that's really worth winning.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 1:20 pm 
Offline
Darley line
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:54 am
Posts: 5936
Location: FL, NY
KBEquine wrote:
Joltman wrote:
B. The Hard Knocker Model - where lower priced (but sound, competitive) horses are bred to lower priced (sound, competitive) stallions and raced in a manner intended to encourage a long career, which would be, in the end, profitable. I would assume in the hard knocker model that certain 'out of favor' but nonetheless solid bloodlines would be preserved/enhanced through the process.

Part of the problem in the Hard Knocker scenario for those who breed and those who break/train/race is that the ability of the lower end, consistent horse quickly loses value and becomes 'cheap' in the public eye, and the only races that they can run in they risk losing the considerable up front investment for a pittance (45k claiming tag). So as the claiming discussion above noted, the claiming process may be 'cheapening' the perception of the value of horses in the lower classes because they are so readily available as cheap commodities.
. . .

Scenario B has lower investment, lower risk, but (perhaps?) equal probability of long term profitability, but less of a chance of the 'home run' that everyone wants to hit. In this scenario - getting quality work at a lower day rate would be critical. Strong state bred programs (long term) would be great assets to support this model. (emphasis added) I emphasize long term because it takes so long in the hard knocker model to start actually earning something, while the Typical model you can sell a weanling and possibly make a profit. So those in states where the state bred program is struggling (Tx?), you have no real chance to get the edge that the hard knockers need to make a profit.



When I look at entries in Pennsylvania, there seems to be a very high percentage of owner/trainers, which gets past the day rate for those owners. But it still is an issue for many breeders, who say they would be owners if they COULD afford the day rate.

If you breed the hard-knocking horse, you either all but give it to a trainer/owner & hope for the best with regard to breeder's awards, or race it yourself - if you can afford to do that.

Some people are pretty good at putting together partnerships to defray those day-rates (which unfortunately aren't any lower for hard-knockers than for Scenario A horses.)

Maybe instead, breeders should "partner" together to have a "stable co-op" & hire a trainer, the breeders to pay a salary & actual costs of hay, grain, grooms, vets, exercise riders, etc., and the trainer to get a percentage of the purses, in addition to the salary. But finding a quality trainer interested in that scenario would probably be akin to the search for the holy grail . . .


Hi KB,
Actually in todays economy, more trainer's than not would be interested in such an arrangement. Most of the "hard knocking" trainers for good old blue collar hard knocking horses are in hock trying to make a go of it. The day rates many charge simply cover expenses and they live off that same old 10% commission that has been in existence since racing began. No commission, no extra money to survive or to pay all those extra expenses incurred on a daily basis in a racing stable. The money goes out faster than it comes in....and many are working with plastic to stay afloat. The big trainers get the 100 plus a day.....but the small guy gets 50-65 a day.....which on the low end, barely covers expenses, if it does. To have a barn full of horses, an actual pay check plus commission, no salaries to pay (therefore the workman's comp is on those paying the salaries....very expensive I might add....most trainers need a horse to earn 50,000 plus just to cover his/her workman's comp bill) and no feed, supplements and bedding bills piling up monthly to run the place is something most all small trainer's would jump at, run an add and see how many respond. TJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: t
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:00 pm 
Offline
Restricted Stakes Winner

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:52 pm
Posts: 960
TJ,
I have to disagree with the idea that all the day money goes to expenses. Look at the money these guys win, even at a track like Golden Gate or similar.

The top 10 trainers will have won 500 hundred thousand dollars at most, many won less. Do we really believe they live off $50K a year?

Lots of day money goes to lease their car or truck, pay "travel" to and from the track, and other expense money. It doesn't all go into the horse, or the trainer would starve to death on what they earn.

Example: GGF trainers at present for the year:

Jerry Hollendorfer 364 96 68 61 26 62 $1,503,082
Steve Sherman 293 84 58 57 29 68 $1,027,083
William E. Morey 224 64 52 39 29 69 $926,095
Steve Miyadi 212 50 44 30 24 58 $469,944
Steven Specht 147 30 24 27 20 55 $523,804
John F. Martin 98 29 17 17 30 64 $287,846
Ed Moger, Jr. 187 27 28 32 14 47 $311,388
Lloyd C. Mason 178 25 40 35 14 56 $563,850
William J. Morey, Jr. 93 22 21 14 24 61 $434,928
Jeff Bonde 110 20 24 12 18 51 $353,141
Frank Lucarelli 115 18 24 14 16 49 $321,920
William Delia 93 17 10 18 18 48 $194,149
C. J. Jenda 86 16 17 11 19 51 $267,435
Dean Pederson 60 16 6 11 27 55 $157,261


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: t
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:05 pm 
Offline
Darley line
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:54 am
Posts: 5936
Location: FL, NY
tbrace wrote:
TJ,
I have to disagree with the idea that all the day money goes to expenses. Look at the money these guys win, even at a track like Golden Gate or similar.

The top 10 trainers will have won 500 hundred thousand dollars at most, many won less. Do we really believe they live off $50K a year?

Lots of day money goes to lease their car or truck, pay "travel" to and from the track, and other expense money. It doesn't all go into the horse, or the trainer would starve to death on what they earn.

Example: GGF trainers at present for the year:

Jerry Hollendorfer 364 96 68 61 26 62 $1,503,082
Steve Sherman 293 84 58 57 29 68 $1,027,083
William E. Morey 224 64 52 39 29 69 $926,095
Steve Miyadi 212 50 44 30 24 58 $469,944
Steven Specht 147 30 24 27 20 55 $523,804
John F. Martin 98 29 17 17 30 64 $287,846
Ed Moger, Jr. 187 27 28 32 14 47 $311,388
Lloyd C. Mason 178 25 40 35 14 56 $563,850
William J. Morey, Jr. 93 22 21 14 24 61 $434,928
Jeff Bonde 110 20 24 12 18 51 $353,141
Frank Lucarelli 115 18 24 14 16 49 $321,920
William Delia 93 17 10 18 18 48 $194,149
C. J. Jenda 86 16 17 11 19 51 $267,435
Dean Pederson 60 16 6 11 27 55 $157,261


Hi T,
The top trainer's, who get the higher day rates are making money, and along with the commission they are doing well. The small trainers making the low day rates to entice an owner to his barn don't make a penny off day money.....they are lucky to break even....it will cost no less than 50 a day to keep a horse on the track. TJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 6:31 pm 
Offline
Leading Sire

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 5:18 pm
Posts: 3519
Location: Yorktown, VA
why does it cost $50 per day to keep a horse on the track ??

I don't have a problem with a trainer making a decent living and I think they can do very well charging $50 a day for lets say 10 to 15 horses and the 10% of the winnings can fund a decent college fund.

griff

_________________
"We has met the enemy and he is us" [Pogo]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:14 pm 
Offline
Starters Handicap

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 5:20 pm
Posts: 686
Location: Western Canada
I did the coop thing, was a pain in the ass for me, and I only had 3 horses from one client! Try keeping track of whose horse used how much and getting the owners to get you what you need when you need it, had issues with feed consitency, vets, farrier etc. I flatrated my fee for one client/friend, I supplied all the labour, made all the arrangements, paid all the bills ordered feed adn she paind one mpnthly fee, worked out really well for us.
The coop could work really well in theory, but you'd need a pretty special group of partners that owned the horse, and a super organized barn to make it run well. Plus, the trainer could only take some many horses before it started to cost them money with extra help etc. In multiple owner barns, chaos could reign in a co-op, making major headaches for the trainer.

_________________
A woman needs 2 animals in her life-the horse of her dreams, and a jackass to pay for it!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:28 am 
Offline
Darley line
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:54 am
Posts: 5936
Location: FL, NY
griff wrote:
why does it cost $50 per day to keep a horse on the track ??

I don't have a problem with a trainer making a decent living and I think they can do very well charging $50 a day for lets say 10 to 15 horses and the 10% of the winnings can fund a decent college fund.

griff


Hi Griff,
Just a quick run down....I'll keep it low ball using 4 horses. In a weeks time at $50 a day. Each day $200 day rate....expenses per day; Hot walker -$30, groom -70, feed, hay, supplements -30, bedding -25, additional supplies (poultice, brace, hoof packing, furicine, ball solution, paints etc. -15, misc. -10 and workmans comp -20. A small trainer takes in 200 a day and shells out 200 in this scenario. On the other hand, the big trainers will be charging 100 a day and make about200 a day in their pocket. TJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:00 am 
Offline
Grade III Winner

Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 12:12 pm
Posts: 1024
Shannon wrote:
I did the coop thing, was a pain in the ass for me, and I only had 3 horses from one client! Try keeping track of whose horse used how much and getting the owners to get you what you need when you need it, had issues with feed consitency, vets, farrier etc. I flatrated my fee for one client/friend, I supplied all the labour, made all the arrangements, paid all the bills ordered feed adn she paind one mpnthly fee, worked out really well for us.
The coop could work really well in theory, but you'd need a pretty special group of partners that owned the horse, and a super organized barn to make it run well. Plus, the trainer could only take some many horses before it started to cost them money with extra help etc. In multiple owner barns, chaos could reign in a co-op, making major headaches for the trainer.


Actually, this is sort of what I was thinking would be the trainer's perspective -

In my hypothetical co-op, we'd probably have 10 stalls either at a farm & would ship to the track, or at a training center - or at the track itself, track management willing. But at the farm works better in my mind for letting the trainer focus on training & not management & billing. (Unless, of course, I'm missing something, which is SO possible!)

The farm owner would order the feed, grain, etc., and apportion costs among the co-op members & the farm would supply grooms & hot-walkers, perhaps of their own staff or the trainer's choosing. The trainer would pick the exercise rider he or she wanted to work with, but the farm would pay. The trainer would keep the record of which horse got what, but the farm would do the billing, so the trainer didn't have to deal with that part.

IF one of the breeders wanted to run off the farm, they'd "buy" a stall or two, pay their share of the trainer's salary, exercise rider, hot walker (unless the hot-walked their own) but not really have many other co-op expenses. They would trailer in for works, etc.

Of course, that would take a trainer & owner who are completely on the same page about about training techniques & I don't think it would work for very many trainers or owners.

And even if the co-op starts well, I'm sure that along the way, someone or another would lag in payments, etc., or drop out & then the others would have to cover that owner's share of the trainer's salary until a new owner applies/is accepted into the co-op.

Shannon - when you said you flat-rated for a friend, what is the difference from a flat daily rate at $50 or $100 or whatever & a flat monthly rate at 30 or 31 days times the day-rate? Was the flat-rate lower, but the trainer's portion of the win higher, or am I missing your point?

TJ & Shannon - I'm glad you spoke up - a couple of PA breeders had discussed this co-op concept, but I'm not really sure we could agree on a trainer amongst ourselves, much less find one who would be interested in working with us. But we do toss the idea around & it is good to hear other opinions.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:50 am 
Offline
Darley line
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:54 am
Posts: 5936
Location: FL, NY
KBEquine wrote:
Shannon wrote:
I did the coop thing, was a pain in the ass for me, and I only had 3 horses from one client! Try keeping track of whose horse used how much and getting the owners to get you what you need when you need it, had issues with feed consitency, vets, farrier etc. I flatrated my fee for one client/friend, I supplied all the labour, made all the arrangements, paid all the bills ordered feed adn she paind one mpnthly fee, worked out really well for us.
The coop could work really well in theory, but you'd need a pretty special group of partners that owned the horse, and a super organized barn to make it run well. Plus, the trainer could only take some many horses before it started to cost them money with extra help etc. In multiple owner barns, chaos could reign in a co-op, making major headaches for the trainer.


Actually, this is sort of what I was thinking would be the trainer's perspective -

In my hypothetical co-op, we'd probably have 10 stalls either at a farm & would ship to the track, or at a training center - or at the track itself, track management willing. But at the farm works better in my mind for letting the trainer focus on training & not management & billing. (Unless, of course, I'm missing something, which is SO possible!)

The farm owner would order the feed, grain, etc., and apportion costs among the co-op members & the farm would supply grooms & hot-walkers, perhaps of their own staff or the trainer's choosing. The trainer would pick the exercise rider he or she wanted to work with, but the farm would pay. The trainer would keep the record of which horse got what, but the farm would do the billing, so the trainer didn't have to deal with that part.

IF one of the breeders wanted to run off the farm, they'd "buy" a stall or two, pay their share of the trainer's salary, exercise rider, hot walker (unless the hot-walked their own) but not really have many other co-op expenses. They would trailer in for works, etc.

Of course, that would take a trainer & owner who are completely on the same page about about training techniques & I don't think it would work for very many trainers or owners.

And even if the co-op starts well, I'm sure that along the way, someone or another would lag in payments, etc., or drop out & then the others would have to cover that owner's share of the trainer's salary until a new owner applies/is accepted into the co-op.

Shannon - when you said you flat-rated for a friend, what is the difference from a flat daily rate at $50 or $100 or whatever & a flat monthly rate at 30 or 31 days times the day-rate? Was the flat-rate lower, but the trainer's portion of the win higher, or am I missing your point?

TJ & Shannon - I'm glad you spoke up - a couple of PA breeders had discussed this co-op concept, but I'm not really sure we could agree on a trainer amongst ourselves, much less find one who would be interested in working with us. But we do toss the idea around & it is good to hear other opinions.


Hi KB,
I can't see a decent, hard working, competent trainer that wouldn't go for this.....I've seen a lot of good trainer's that got out....even in the upper level because there isn't enough money in it and the bills pile up. Some have gone into bloodstock, other's gave up training all together, to manage farms and racing stock for big owners...like Elliot Walden. Even Ken McPeek gave up training but came back after he sent Curlin to his old assistant trainer, Helen Pitts.
KB, the way you present how you would want this to work, I believe you would get quite a few people interested in doing the job. The small trainer is up against it to show a profit.....let alone a weekly pay check. TJ


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 214 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 15  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group