breeders cup nom.
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster
breeders cup nom.
This may sound like a really dumb question but I was just wondering the general thoughts on how important it is to nominate a foal to the breeders cup from a seller's standpoint. I just nominated my Aljabr weanling but am wondering if it really helps at all at a sale. Any opinions?
Virtue shall be bound into the hair of thy forelock... I have given thee the power of flight without wings.
- The Koran
- The Koran
Hi RD,
That's a good question.
The Breeder's Cup site will show graphs where the average sales price of the BC nominated foal is INCREDIBLY higher than those not nominated.
There's a simple explanation for this. Many breed to race people are careful to nominate only their best and best bred prospects and to some extent so should commercial breeders. The real statistic should if the BC nomination increased the sales price and that’s impossible to tell. Nothing like a good spin!
You need to be honest and evaluate the foal. I'd nominate ALL of my Storm Cat foals
but question nominating any foal with physical problems or lack of size that would make them less saleable.
I don't think that there are any rules but there are a few ways that I look at the BC noms.
1 - Is the stallion commercial enough to generate price at the sales. Is it expected of this stallion to have their foals nominated. If the stallion is one that nominations are usual for you tell the potential buyers that you don’t think a lot of the stallion. Conversely you may make the implication that we like this foal from a lesser sire if you nominate.
2 - What price do I believe this foal will bring at sale? It makes no sense to nominate a foal where the fee will be a sizeable percentage of the sales price. I won't nominate any foal that I feel will bring $10,000 or less.
3 -Will the nomination make the foal get even a single higher bid (usually in $500 increments at the sales). If I feel that this is the case - I'll nominate.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Pete
That's a good question.
The Breeder's Cup site will show graphs where the average sales price of the BC nominated foal is INCREDIBLY higher than those not nominated.
There's a simple explanation for this. Many breed to race people are careful to nominate only their best and best bred prospects and to some extent so should commercial breeders. The real statistic should if the BC nomination increased the sales price and that’s impossible to tell. Nothing like a good spin!
You need to be honest and evaluate the foal. I'd nominate ALL of my Storm Cat foals
but question nominating any foal with physical problems or lack of size that would make them less saleable.
I don't think that there are any rules but there are a few ways that I look at the BC noms.
1 - Is the stallion commercial enough to generate price at the sales. Is it expected of this stallion to have their foals nominated. If the stallion is one that nominations are usual for you tell the potential buyers that you don’t think a lot of the stallion. Conversely you may make the implication that we like this foal from a lesser sire if you nominate.
2 - What price do I believe this foal will bring at sale? It makes no sense to nominate a foal where the fee will be a sizeable percentage of the sales price. I won't nominate any foal that I feel will bring $10,000 or less.
3 -Will the nomination make the foal get even a single higher bid (usually in $500 increments at the sales). If I feel that this is the case - I'll nominate.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Pete
rdharding, the only stupid question is the one you don't ask, but want an answer to.
I have nominated all my foals for Breeders Cup so far, but I haven't had many. I have always tried to breed a quality mare to a quality stallion, even if the stallion is low-priced and non-commercial.
1) You may end up keeping a foal due to injury, illness at time of sale, or lack of bids, and it might become talented enough to run in regional or national Breeders Cup races. You will benefit at least five hundred dollars if the horse gets a piece of that purse, and the fee is worth only about ten days training costs in the scheme of things. e.g. Came Home was named that because the owner kept bringing him home unsold from the sales.
2) Horses that appear undersized or crooked in October of their weanling year (when the fee is due) often change for the better over time. e.g Cumby Texas in a previous thread (stakes family).
3) As Pete said, if the sire is popular and perception is that his babies will be going places, why blot the catalog page with lack of Breeders Cup nomination? As a buyer, I would avoid an expensive horse that doesn't have it.
4) If you want to be a run-of-the-mill breeder, matching poor mares with poor stallions, obviously don't waste the $500 fee, because the chances of lightning in a bottle are pretty slim.
I have nominated all my foals for Breeders Cup so far, but I haven't had many. I have always tried to breed a quality mare to a quality stallion, even if the stallion is low-priced and non-commercial.
1) You may end up keeping a foal due to injury, illness at time of sale, or lack of bids, and it might become talented enough to run in regional or national Breeders Cup races. You will benefit at least five hundred dollars if the horse gets a piece of that purse, and the fee is worth only about ten days training costs in the scheme of things. e.g. Came Home was named that because the owner kept bringing him home unsold from the sales.
2) Horses that appear undersized or crooked in October of their weanling year (when the fee is due) often change for the better over time. e.g Cumby Texas in a previous thread (stakes family).
3) As Pete said, if the sire is popular and perception is that his babies will be going places, why blot the catalog page with lack of Breeders Cup nomination? As a buyer, I would avoid an expensive horse that doesn't have it.
4) If you want to be a run-of-the-mill breeder, matching poor mares with poor stallions, obviously don't waste the $500 fee, because the chances of lightning in a bottle are pretty slim.
My feeling is that with all the other costs associated with breeding Thoroughbreds, the $500. I pay to nominate my foals to the Breeders Cup is well worth it. Will they bring a higher price at the sales? Probably not, but I do believe they'd be negatively impacted by not being nominated as the vast majority of their peers will be.
If the stallions you're breeding to are the kind that have most of their offspring nominated, then not doing so makes it look as though you didn't think much of your foal. If I was a buyer, an omission like that would make a big impression on me.
If the stallions you're breeding to are the kind that have most of their offspring nominated, then not doing so makes it look as though you didn't think much of your foal. If I was a buyer, an omission like that would make a big impression on me.
I think LSB has hit on a psychological aspect of how a Buyer might view a non-nominated foal - if from a stallion whose progeny otherwise appear in Sales Catalogs as nominated:
"If the stallions you're breeding to are the kind that have most of their offspring nominated, then not doing so makes it look as though you didn't think much of your foal. If I was a buyer, an omission like that would make a big impression on me."
I've caught myself saying something to that effect when going through catalogs far too many times to not acknowlege it. It also goes with what henthorn was saying too: "As a buyer, I would avoid an expensive horse that doesn't have it."
I will be nominating my weanling filly to the BC program this week as her sire is - despite being unraced himself and with few of his first few crops even making it to the races - proving to produce a big horse now and then - G-3 2YO in his first crop - and fairly commerical, so far (av. price for yearlings is $27,000+, but skewed heavily by few foals to be auctioned and two of those going for very good prices). I don't think it will cause someone to bid on my filly but it might sway someone thinking about bidding on her....to do so or to even bid a bit higher. At least it says that I think something of her as the Breeder/Seller. She will have to do her part of course: really mature into a good looking individual with superior athleticism.
"If the stallions you're breeding to are the kind that have most of their offspring nominated, then not doing so makes it look as though you didn't think much of your foal. If I was a buyer, an omission like that would make a big impression on me."
I've caught myself saying something to that effect when going through catalogs far too many times to not acknowlege it. It also goes with what henthorn was saying too: "As a buyer, I would avoid an expensive horse that doesn't have it."
I will be nominating my weanling filly to the BC program this week as her sire is - despite being unraced himself and with few of his first few crops even making it to the races - proving to produce a big horse now and then - G-3 2YO in his first crop - and fairly commerical, so far (av. price for yearlings is $27,000+, but skewed heavily by few foals to be auctioned and two of those going for very good prices). I don't think it will cause someone to bid on my filly but it might sway someone thinking about bidding on her....to do so or to even bid a bit higher. At least it says that I think something of her as the Breeder/Seller. She will have to do her part of course: really mature into a good looking individual with superior athleticism.
. May you be rewarded by owning major stakes winning horses, or be able to receive dividends from champions in your consignment. 
Hi guys
Nominating foals to the Breeders' Cup (both the good and the not as good) is a standard cost of doing business for most commercial breeders..
As we have learned...nobody knows for sure who the good ones will be. Will it be the likes of Xtra Heat (sold for less than $10,000 on 3 occasions)...or $27,000 yearling buy-back War Emblem. Who knows for sure?
It's important to remember though...a horse can always be supplemented to a race on Breeders' Cup day. Yes it would cost plenty...and the percentage to determine the supplemental fee will be determined by the sire's eligibility (or lack thereof)...but a supplementary system IS in place.
but...I believe that for the regional breeder (for example) it is more important to nominate a foal to the regional stakes program(s) than to the Breeders' Cup (if it comes down to one or the other).
For example...if you have a foal by a Maryland stallion...eligibility for the Maryland Million will probably have more affect on the sales potential (and racing opportunities) of your foal than a Breeders' Cup eligibility (but both is better...for obvious reasons).
Another example is Florida...a foal (sired by an eligible Florida stallion) could be seriously affected (in a negative way) at sale if it has not been nominated (and kept eligible) to the Florida Stallion Stakes program...not to mention the potential loss of opportunity to run for a million and a half dollars versus a relatively small number of other elibible horses. But as stated above...eligibility to both (regional programs and the Breeders' Cup) is better...for obvious reasons...than eligibility to one...but if it comes down to one I say go regional. There is no supplement to the Florida stallion Stakes...there is a Breeders' Cup supplementary system.
Why do I believe that nominations to state programs are potentially more important than nominations to the Breeders' Cup (if you must choose one or the other)?
State programs rarely (if ever) have a supplementary nomination system...and most state programs give away millions of dollars in purses restricted to ONLY the eligible offspring of a very limited number of regional stallions. Pretty simple...lots of money for relatively few horses...
...and if your horse becomes Breeders'-Cup-day-worthy...he/she will have probably earned well in excess of the BC supplementary nomination fee (maybe by earning a small fortune in a restricted state-program) before that becomes a concern.
And by the way...if your horse doesn't vet...scope...and look the part...nothing will really matter...including stakes and BC nominations.
Best of luck.
Respectfully
Nominating foals to the Breeders' Cup (both the good and the not as good) is a standard cost of doing business for most commercial breeders..
As we have learned...nobody knows for sure who the good ones will be. Will it be the likes of Xtra Heat (sold for less than $10,000 on 3 occasions)...or $27,000 yearling buy-back War Emblem. Who knows for sure?
It's important to remember though...a horse can always be supplemented to a race on Breeders' Cup day. Yes it would cost plenty...and the percentage to determine the supplemental fee will be determined by the sire's eligibility (or lack thereof)...but a supplementary system IS in place.
but...I believe that for the regional breeder (for example) it is more important to nominate a foal to the regional stakes program(s) than to the Breeders' Cup (if it comes down to one or the other).
For example...if you have a foal by a Maryland stallion...eligibility for the Maryland Million will probably have more affect on the sales potential (and racing opportunities) of your foal than a Breeders' Cup eligibility (but both is better...for obvious reasons).
Another example is Florida...a foal (sired by an eligible Florida stallion) could be seriously affected (in a negative way) at sale if it has not been nominated (and kept eligible) to the Florida Stallion Stakes program...not to mention the potential loss of opportunity to run for a million and a half dollars versus a relatively small number of other elibible horses. But as stated above...eligibility to both (regional programs and the Breeders' Cup) is better...for obvious reasons...than eligibility to one...but if it comes down to one I say go regional. There is no supplement to the Florida stallion Stakes...there is a Breeders' Cup supplementary system.
Why do I believe that nominations to state programs are potentially more important than nominations to the Breeders' Cup (if you must choose one or the other)?
State programs rarely (if ever) have a supplementary nomination system...and most state programs give away millions of dollars in purses restricted to ONLY the eligible offspring of a very limited number of regional stallions. Pretty simple...lots of money for relatively few horses...
...and if your horse becomes Breeders'-Cup-day-worthy...he/she will have probably earned well in excess of the BC supplementary nomination fee (maybe by earning a small fortune in a restricted state-program) before that becomes a concern.
And by the way...if your horse doesn't vet...scope...and look the part...nothing will really matter...including stakes and BC nominations.
Best of luck.
Respectfully
FOS, I can give a personal example of how important those Breeders Cup and regional or state-bred nominations are.
I bought my yearling filly five years ago because I liked her , although my trainer didn't see her before she got to the sales ring. I also thought I could get her at a bargain price because, though she was a Texas-bred selling in Texas, her catalog page did not say "accredited Texas-bred", and would likely scare off potential bidders 
. I asked the consignor and he clarified that she was not eligible to be accredited because the owner did not follow the requirements to do so, and it was now too late 
.
I bought her for $12,500, a relatively low price for similar appearing "accredited" Texas bred fillies, and she turned out to actually be a racehorse and a bargain
. She did have Breeders Cup nomination, or I would have passed on her entirely. (that's just me).
She was not eligible for any of that good restricted state-bred money open to only those accredited, limiting her choices to open company, all comers. (tougher competition, harder to win). We did enter her in a $100,000 Breeders Cup race, and she got a piece of the purse by running last in a short field.
It cost more to run her, because we traveled to multiple tracks (stakes or allowance wins or placings at ten different tracks), and she made less money because the races were not restricted to Texas-bred easier company. She earned $119,000+, but probably would have doubled or tripled that if she had been accredited
, and taken the easier path. And we could have run her year-around in tracks in Texas, without as many state licenses and fees and van transportation.
I've never regretted the decision to buy her, but I made my choices with my eyes wide open, knowing that what appeared to be a bargain up front might cost me later.
I bought my yearling filly five years ago because I liked her
, although my trainer didn't see her before she got to the sales ring. I also thought I could get her at a bargain price because, though she was a Texas-bred selling in Texas, her catalog page did not say "accredited Texas-bred", and would likely scare off potential bidders . I asked the consignor and he clarified that she was not eligible to be accredited because the owner did not follow the requirements to do so, and it was now too late .
I bought her for $12,500, a relatively low price for similar appearing "accredited" Texas bred fillies, and she turned out to actually be a racehorse and a bargain
. She did have Breeders Cup nomination, or I would have passed on her entirely. (that's just me).
She was not eligible for any of that good restricted state-bred money open to only those accredited, limiting her choices to open company, all comers. (tougher competition, harder to win). We did enter her in a $100,000 Breeders Cup race, and she got a piece of the purse by running last in a short field.
It cost more to run her, because we traveled to multiple tracks (stakes or allowance wins or placings at ten different tracks), and she made less money because the races were not restricted to Texas-bred easier company. She earned $119,000+, but probably would have doubled or tripled that if she had been accredited
, and taken the easier path. And we could have run her year-around in tracks in Texas, without as many state licenses and fees and van transportation.
I've never regretted the decision to buy her, but I made my choices with my eyes wide open, knowing that what appeared to be a bargain up front might cost me later.
Rocking H