Uncle Mo vs Mr Nightlinger
Moderators: Roguelet, WaveMaster, madelyn
-
oliverstoned
- Restricted Stakes Winner
- Posts: 929
- Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:17 pm
- Location: Florida
Uncle Mo vs Mr Nightlinger
Both really fast sons of Indian Charlie. Mr. N with the better female family and possibly more durable. One about to breed 200 mares the other down in Oklahoma for 1500 LF.
-
oliverstoned
- Restricted Stakes Winner
- Posts: 929
- Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:17 pm
- Location: Florida
-
da hossman
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:08 am
- Location: KY
Mr. Nightlinger may prove to be the better sire but it will be a lot harder for him to do it starting with much lesser quality mares in OK.
As far as "the better investment" is concerned, foals of Mr. N have absolutely no chance of bringing 1/10th the average price of foals of Uncle Mo. "Better investment" refers to business & dollars last I looked.
You may have strong sentiments Casallc and it is possible that Mr. N will in time prove to be a better sire of runners than Uncle Mo, but your "bet" doesn't have an ice cream cone's chance in hell.
As far as "the better investment" is concerned, foals of Mr. N have absolutely no chance of bringing 1/10th the average price of foals of Uncle Mo. "Better investment" refers to business & dollars last I looked.
You may have strong sentiments Casallc and it is possible that Mr. N will in time prove to be a better sire of runners than Uncle Mo, but your "bet" doesn't have an ice cream cone's chance in hell.
A difference of opinion is what makes horse racing and missionaries.
Will Rogers
Will Rogers
It really depends on what you're defining as profit potential. In a regional market with breeders' awards factored into the mix, breeding to Mr. Nightlinger could prove very profitable if he proves to be the type that can consistently get winners in the state-bred program. But he's not likely to be profitable as an auction sire; you could meet the 2.5 times stud fee benchmark and still lose money on what it cost to raise the yearling, depending on your farm expenses. Uncle Mo is in a much better position for the sale ring because of his own reputation and the quality of mares he will see; he also has a higher potential for the "home run" horse both at auction and on the track.
"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher...You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse." C. S. Lewis
da hossman wrote:Mr. Nightlinger may prove to be the better sire but it will be a lot harder for him to do it starting with much lesser quality mares in OK.
As far as "the better investment" is concerned, foals of Mr. N have absolutely no chance of bringing 1/10th the average price of foals of Uncle Mo. "Better investment" refers to business & dollars last I looked.
You may have strong sentiments Casallc and it is possible that Mr. N will in time prove to be a better sire of runners than Uncle Mo, but your "bet" doesn't have an ice cream cone's chance in hell.
Quality is not necessarily indicative of high prices or black type. Seems to me that several of the Breeders Cup winners were from the very type of mares that you hold in such disdain. Caleb’s Possee was out of a low quality OK bred maiden mare and Amazombie was out of a "common" mare. Those are just two off the top of my head. There are sure to be many more.
As much as the elites would like us to believe that you have to spend big bucks in KY for lots of black type and breed to their overpriced studs to succeed in the race business - it is not true. The commercial market is dead or near death. Those who try to make a little money in the race business certainly don't do it paying big prices for racing stock. It has been proven time and again that top selling yearlings seldom return their purchase price, let alone make money
The reason this is called the sport of kings is because Kings and the super wealthy can play without regard for what the costs are. Smart people don't play with the Kings - they usually "play" the kings and pocket their money.
Last edited by casallc on Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tappiano wrote:Is that based on the historic 2.5 times the stud fee as a benchmark for profitability or are you saying that since the cost of raising a foal from each sire eliminates the lower priced one?
I do not see Uncle Mo's average being 2.5 times the stud fee, ever.
Quite a few of the first years averaged around 100k+ at the yearling sales in a relatively soft market. It's certainly not out of the realm of possibility if he's as good looking as I hear he is.
-
oliverstoned
- Restricted Stakes Winner
- Posts: 929
- Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:17 pm
- Location: Florida
Take a look at Awesome Feather or Jackson Bend, out of real nice mares bred to minor stakes winning stallions and voila. They were raised right and placed with the right trainer. Now look at Kitten's Joy, a champion yes but bred to a lot of ex-claimers and pretty much ordinary mares, raised well and placed with the right trainers who were willing to ship to the right races with them. What cassallc says is true you don't have to buy a million dollar mare and breed to Bernardini to have a top horse. In a breed to race operation if you take a nice Graded Stakes winning mare and breed her alternately to Mr. N and Mo I'm not so sure which one is going to be best but you will be $33,500 ahead from the get go with the Mr N.
-
da hossman
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:08 am
- Location: KY
Cassalc, I don't think my comments indicated any disdain regarding the quality of mares in OK, I merely stated the fact that they are lesser quality than those in KY. Blacktype is the accepted measure of quality. Good racehorses do arise from less than "blueblood" mares, however the frequency is disproportionally less for the offspring of lesser quality mares.
My comments on your "bet" can be read to have been made with disdain, and I could have phrased it more diplomatically. However the fact is that it costs roughly the same to raise a yearling that sells for $10,000 as it does to raise a yearling that sells for $100,000 - which in turn means the $100,000 yearling is significantly more profitable even in the case of a $30,000 stud fee. When one discusses return on investment one is generally discussing the commercial market, which usually refers to weanlings & yearlings. My comments were made in reference to those markets.
If you want to step further out and suggest that racing is profitable for anyone, then one could only be considering racing within certain state-bred programs, specifically New York, PA & LA. I am very familiar with the OK program (having had an interest in a stallion standing there & bred a few OK-breds), and while it is a decent program it is still very difficult to race horses and break even, much less turn a profit. CR Trout may be able to do it, but few others are.
Just so you'll know, I knew Mr. N on the track and do like him physically and respected him greatly as a racehorse. I was actually a bit surprised when he went to stud in OK because I thought his sire & performance would have him standing in LA where there are significantly more mares and therefore greater profit opportunity for his owners in terms of stud fees, stallion awards & breeders awards. I suspect the fact that he was a better turf sprinter than dirt sprinter was the determining factor in his standing in OK rather than LA. Mr. N is a good opportunity for OK breeders.
I did go a bit overboard in my "absolutely no chance of bringing 1/10th the average price of foals of Uncle Mo." I project Uncle Mo's first yearlings to average around $100,000 and I suspect Mr. Nightlinger's first yearlings to average around $10,000 so perhaps the ratio will be 1/10th or thereabouts.
Yeah this whole post could be interpreted as being snooty, but I think anyone taking the time to consider the facts of the commercial market and the costs of racing would have to agree with my comments. I am not an elite, I am merely a realist with a lot of experience in this game laying out the facts.
As far as what you believe or "what the elites would like you to believe", I can only say that I am always trying to get the highest quality I can afford, whether it be in horses or hamburgers. Quality is not always determined by price but price is certainly indicative of quality. If Mr. Nightlinger's offspring perform well enough he will move to the bigger money as did Kipling, Mr. Prospector, Meadowlake, etc.
My comments on your "bet" can be read to have been made with disdain, and I could have phrased it more diplomatically. However the fact is that it costs roughly the same to raise a yearling that sells for $10,000 as it does to raise a yearling that sells for $100,000 - which in turn means the $100,000 yearling is significantly more profitable even in the case of a $30,000 stud fee. When one discusses return on investment one is generally discussing the commercial market, which usually refers to weanlings & yearlings. My comments were made in reference to those markets.
If you want to step further out and suggest that racing is profitable for anyone, then one could only be considering racing within certain state-bred programs, specifically New York, PA & LA. I am very familiar with the OK program (having had an interest in a stallion standing there & bred a few OK-breds), and while it is a decent program it is still very difficult to race horses and break even, much less turn a profit. CR Trout may be able to do it, but few others are.
Just so you'll know, I knew Mr. N on the track and do like him physically and respected him greatly as a racehorse. I was actually a bit surprised when he went to stud in OK because I thought his sire & performance would have him standing in LA where there are significantly more mares and therefore greater profit opportunity for his owners in terms of stud fees, stallion awards & breeders awards. I suspect the fact that he was a better turf sprinter than dirt sprinter was the determining factor in his standing in OK rather than LA. Mr. N is a good opportunity for OK breeders.
I did go a bit overboard in my "absolutely no chance of bringing 1/10th the average price of foals of Uncle Mo." I project Uncle Mo's first yearlings to average around $100,000 and I suspect Mr. Nightlinger's first yearlings to average around $10,000 so perhaps the ratio will be 1/10th or thereabouts.
Yeah this whole post could be interpreted as being snooty, but I think anyone taking the time to consider the facts of the commercial market and the costs of racing would have to agree with my comments. I am not an elite, I am merely a realist with a lot of experience in this game laying out the facts.
As far as what you believe or "what the elites would like you to believe", I can only say that I am always trying to get the highest quality I can afford, whether it be in horses or hamburgers. Quality is not always determined by price but price is certainly indicative of quality. If Mr. Nightlinger's offspring perform well enough he will move to the bigger money as did Kipling, Mr. Prospector, Meadowlake, etc.
A difference of opinion is what makes horse racing and missionaries.
Will Rogers
Will Rogers
-
oliverstoned
- Restricted Stakes Winner
- Posts: 929
- Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:17 pm
- Location: Florida
Hi Hoss, While your original post was quite blunt I wouldn't disagree with it's accuracy. The only way Mr N could even approach being commercial would be if for some strange reason a respected breeder purchased him and said "you know what I believe in this horse and am going to send him 30 quality stakes winning and/or producing mares every year".
I evalute stallions through a breed to race prism so Eclipse awards or what the Grade of the race means nothing rather I look at say Mo and say "lets see, he won a mile race at Belmont and beat Jackson Bend pretty easily then he....". Then I look at the family the same way and in looking at these two this way I can't justify that great of a stud fee difference in these two unproven stallions.
I evalute stallions through a breed to race prism so Eclipse awards or what the Grade of the race means nothing rather I look at say Mo and say "lets see, he won a mile race at Belmont and beat Jackson Bend pretty easily then he....". Then I look at the family the same way and in looking at these two this way I can't justify that great of a stud fee difference in these two unproven stallions.
da hossman:
Apples and oranges, I contend the commercial market is dead or near death. Anyone who gets into the horse business today with the intent to buy high dollar mares, breed them and make money is dreaming. Those who are racing for profit with their own stock rarely play in the same circles with the sheiks and millionaires. The quickest way to go broke is in the breeding business, trying to sell offspring for profit. The next quickest way is buying high priced "quality" yearlings and racing them. Those that survive in the business work the claim box and seek out bargains. The horse business is like most any other business - you rarely make money by paying too much to start with.
I agree it doesn't cost any more to feed a cheap horse as an expensive one but I can feed, raise and train the same horse in OK for about half the price as in KY. If they are the caliber to go to KY or elsewhere if they prove it here – you will be money ahead.
You may be right, that an Uncle Mo offspring will bring more at a sale, but it will still lose money in all probability. I have made a living buying and selling horses for close to 50 years and have seen market trends go up and down. The thoroughbred market has been inflated for years. Just because there is talk of a resurgence of the prices, it is only puffery by those who have the most to lose. Horses are not close to the bottom yet and we are going to see another crash similar to in the early 80's - but worse.
Apples and oranges, I contend the commercial market is dead or near death. Anyone who gets into the horse business today with the intent to buy high dollar mares, breed them and make money is dreaming. Those who are racing for profit with their own stock rarely play in the same circles with the sheiks and millionaires. The quickest way to go broke is in the breeding business, trying to sell offspring for profit. The next quickest way is buying high priced "quality" yearlings and racing them. Those that survive in the business work the claim box and seek out bargains. The horse business is like most any other business - you rarely make money by paying too much to start with.
I agree it doesn't cost any more to feed a cheap horse as an expensive one but I can feed, raise and train the same horse in OK for about half the price as in KY. If they are the caliber to go to KY or elsewhere if they prove it here – you will be money ahead.
You may be right, that an Uncle Mo offspring will bring more at a sale, but it will still lose money in all probability. I have made a living buying and selling horses for close to 50 years and have seen market trends go up and down. The thoroughbred market has been inflated for years. Just because there is talk of a resurgence of the prices, it is only puffery by those who have the most to lose. Horses are not close to the bottom yet and we are going to see another crash similar to in the early 80's - but worse.