- This topic has 16 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Obviously racehorse ownership in Britain is a non starter, may as well put your money down a grid but which country is best value for money if you’re based in Britain or is it out of the question?
Has anyone experience of ownership in France, America etc and what’s the best way to get involved in ownership in these countries?I’m not sure but it’s roughly 1,000-2,000 Euro’s per month per horse in training in France Yeats.
Even the gaff tracks are in the 20,000 Euro prize pool so you’d imagine a couple of seconds a month would cover costs and if you get something semi-decent you’d more than cover a years training fees with just the one win.
Marseille today stage two turf flat races worth 13,000 and 15,000 (Euros) whilst Longchamp have an 8 race card with 22,000 4+ conditions race and the Quinte+ race worth 48,000.
The bigger days are obviously worth more and the bigger tracks (Longchamp, Chantilly, Deauville, Saint-Cloud on the flat and Auteuil, Enghien, Pau and Cagnes-Sur-Mer over jumps).
I’d imagine you’re looking at the same training fees but for the quality of horse you have there is better prize money available abroad.
Quite why more Southern trainers in particular don’t look at racing in France is beyond me, Paul Cole has targeted the Prix Yacowlef in the past and there are others too.
Presumably any study would need to factor in the cost of travelling to see your horse run.
Putting your money down a grid is not to be recommended, but at least you get to see it disappearing without having to jump on Eurostar and stay in an expensive hotel.
France is the correct answer.
As I’ve posted on another thread, it beats me why southern-based trainers don’t run their horses in Normandy and other northern French tracks, where prize money is several times greater than here.
Can they not do sums?
No Ven – same reason why Nicholls won’t run his jumpers over there, the owners will realise how badly they’re getting screwed by British racing which is seemingly living entirely off the prestige of the top races.
Sang Bleu won a listed hurdle on his debut – he won £24,000, next time out after transfering to the UK he would have won £28,000 had he won the Grade 1 he contested at Chepstow.
Take the case of one of my favourite horses in France the mare Quadrette Collonges – she’s aged 6 and a consistent, solid listed performer capable of winning a G3 if things go her way. She’s won around £300,000 compare that with an equivalent horse over here, listed/Group mare in My Petra who’s won around a third of that for the same training fees, both with top trainers (Marcel Rolland and Nicky Henderson).
UK owners must have a real love of racing to keep horses in training over here.
Quite so.
Even the hickest tracks in Normandy would have
at least
£60k on offer for an 8-race programme.
What absolutely baffles me is:
Why is there no outcry from punters in France?
They pay far too much in to "racing", PMU take out is enormous. Poor French peasants (punters) shovelling money in to the pockets of millionaires (owners). Daylight robbery, should not be allowed.
French punters must be idiots to put up with it.
Then again, may be they don’t put up with it, with so few racegoers in France.
Why / how does the PMU get away with their monopoly in the European Courts?
Value Is EverythingI think the USA probably is the best due to the state-bred programs that allow slow horses to run for much larger purses than they would otherwise. If you happen to own a West Virginia-bred, for example, you have the West Virginia Breeders’ Classics in addition to a year-round supply of claiming and allowance races. Also, land is CHEAP, even in the Kentucky bluegrass, and the costs of feed/hay/shavings are less expensive.
The problem is finding a track that isn’t likely to close down in a few years or isn’t already closed. The old harness track a few miles outside of Washington DC, Rosecroft, finally closed on July 1st, pretty much ensuring the demise of the Maryland Sire Stakes and thus Maryland Standardbred breeding in general. Blue Ribbon Downs in Oklahoma closed recently, Hollywood Park is just barely managing to stay open, etc.
But if you have a horse to run at Monmouth ($1 million in purse money per day in their 50-day meet), Woodbine ($70k maiden special weights, anyone?), any of the smaller racinos like Indiana Downs or Charles Town, then you have it pretty good compared to an owner in Europe.
What absolutely baffles me is:
Why is there no outcry from punters in France?
They pay far too much in to "racing", PMU take out is enormous.
I’m not at all sure that’s true.
I thought the PMU overround was in the region of 120%, but maybe I’m wrong.
Miss Woodford, I can’t see how America would be a suitable place for a British-based owner to have horses as it’s so far away. And anyway, as you imply, the sport is going belly-up there. It’s taken them about 30 years to drag racing down to its current state – another 10 years should complete the job unless somebody takes the sport by the scruff its neck and knocks a new business plan into it.
Whoops, I totally missed the "based in Britain" part of the equation. Ack! It’s been a long Saturday…
- Total Posts 17716
Am I alone in finding the implied notion – that racehorse owners should somehow
expect
to at least break even – singularly disgusting in this time of financial hardship for the many?
My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen: owning a racehorse is a sport, for which you should pay, out of your surplus income. In return for your money, you will have privileged free access to spectacular and varied British racecourses, an intensely absorbing interest in a beautiful animal, and the (million to one against) prospect of owning a thoroughbred which will go down in history as one of the Greats.
Really, what more do you – or
should
you – demand from the sport?
Am I alone in finding the implied notion – that racehorse owners should somehow
expect
to at least break even – singularly disgusting in this time of financial hardship for the many?
Where is this particular notion implied as I am interested how anyone could have such a thought nevermind justify it?
- Total Posts 17716
Am I alone in finding the implied notion – that racehorse owners should somehow
expect
to at least break even – singularly disgusting in this time of financial hardship for the many?
Where is this particular notion implied as I am interested how anyone could have such a thought nevermind justify it?
It’s implied in the blackmailing title of this thread, which might be paraphrased "which country will give the British owner bigger prize money than they get at home?"
It’s implied in the use of the term "investment in bloodstock" (buying a horse, to you and me) which implies a business purchase, in hope of making profits, rather than a sporting hobby.
It’s spelt out in the ROA’s existence, an organisation whose main (sole?)
raison d’etre
is to boost prize money for the rich men and women who own the horses, in order to give them a larger chance to turn a profit.
- Total Posts 17716
Really, what more do you – or should you – demand from the sport?
Well isn’t that diatribe nothing more than class ridden contempt? Any owner that enters the sport
expecting
a profit is about as ignorant to the facts as Pinza.
Surely what any owner wants is not a
guarantee
but the
prospect
that returns are going to be somewhat relative to the risks taken. Many would be happy if they had a hope of breaking even. The current state of affairs is "take a huge risk for little propect of a return". How is racing supposed to survive based on those principles?
Should owners really be paying for the whole show for the amusement and profit of the general public or betting operators? How ludicrous is that? Owners are simply looking for a more balanced arrangement. What is so unfair about that?
There are many more investors in this business than millionaires, Lords, Ladies, Princes and Kings. If things keep going the way they are then everyone bar the elite will lose access to ownership. Is that what you really want Pinza? Yes, we can all go back to being outsiders while the wealthy amuse themselves competing for "gentlemens wagers".
Win and place take out on most PMU/Tote systems across the globe is about 18%. Exotic wagers like tricasts, triple trios, quadpots, etc attract a larger take. The win and place over round compares favourably with many bookmaker markets. Exotic results and returns can vary widely between value/unders.
- Total Posts 17716
Really, what more do you – or should you – demand from the sport?
Well isn’t that diatribe nothing more than class ridden contempt? Any owner that enters the sport
expecting
a profit is about as ignorant to the facts as Pinza.
Asking a question hardly amounts to a diatribe. And in any case – though I can’t defend myself against accusations of ignorance, which as Oscar Wilde said is a delicate, exotic fruit – I’m hardly sure
which
class I’m contemptuous of in asking my question!
Surely what any owner wants is not a
guarantee
but the
prospect
that returns are going to be somewhat relative to the risks taken. Many would be happy if they had a hope of breaking even. The current state of affairs is "take a huge risk for little prospect of a return". How is racing supposed to survive based on those principles?
Business-speak:
"prospect", "returns", "risks"
– these suggest the wrong mindset. What such a utilitarian, Small-Town-Chamber-of-Commerce fiscal statement completely ignores is that Horse Racing is a
sport
, an amusement or pastime; and not – for the owners – a
business
. If business is what they want, then they should go forth from Epsom to the City (and ignore the City & Suburban.)
Should owners really be paying for the whole show for the amusement and profit of the general public or betting operators?
In a word,
yes they most certainly should
!
Nobody forces owners to buy and race horses, and the
"amusement and profit"
of the bystanders is a side-product, not something owners should whinge or whine about. Trainers, jockeys, breeders, racecourses, the Racing Authorities… these paid professionals exist to service owners’ needs, and to make a living out of them. They are the business people involved: the owners are, in the best sense, amateurs who are funding the business, not running it to their own profit.
The betting operators come into a different category: more like parasites on the beast who are forced to contribute their mite (no pun intended!)
There are many more investors in this business than millionaires, Lords, Ladies, Princes and Kings. If things keep going the way they are then everyone bar the elite will lose access to ownership. Is that what you really want Pinza? Yes, we can all go back to being outsiders while the wealthy amuse themselves competing for "gentlemens wagers".
Commercial-speak once again:
"investors", "business"
. Sigh…
It’s depressing to have to put up with the tired charge of "elitism" – though as an Elite member Pinza must plead guilty in one sense, emotionally and financially involved as he is in ownership. Or is mere club membership worthy of what you’ve described as class-ridden contempt?
Constructively, I can only suggest that you go back to basics, and think about the linguistic terms in which you choose to define the pastime of owning a horse. Business-speak has become modish in many spheres, from the NHS to the Arts. Is it any more appropriate to pompously apply it to the indulgence of owning a racehorse?
Really, what more do you – or should you – demand from the sport?
Well isn’t that diatribe nothing more than class ridden contempt? Any owner that enters the sport
expecting
a profit is about as ignorant to the facts as Pinza.
Surely what any owner wants is not a
guarantee
but the
prospect
that returns are going to be somewhat relative to the risks taken. Many would be happy if they had a hope of breaking even. The current state of affairs is "take a huge risk for little propect of a return". How is racing supposed to survive based on those principles?
Should owners really be paying for the whole show for the amusement and profit of the general public or betting operators? How ludicrous is that? Owners are simply looking for a more balanced arrangement. What is so unfair about that?
There are many more investors in this business than millionaires, Lords, Ladies, Princes and Kings. If things keep going the way they are then everyone bar the elite will lose access to ownership. Is that what you really want Pinza? Yes, we can all go back to being outsiders while the wealthy amuse themselves competing for "gentlemens wagers".
Win and place take out on most PMU/Tote systems across the globe is about 18%. Exotic wagers like tricasts, triple trios, quadpots, etc attract a larger take. The win and place over round compares favourably with many bookmaker markets. Exotic results and returns can vary widely between value/unders.
Excellent post Chiswickian, couldn’t have put it better meself
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.