Appearance Fees

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

The appearance fee problem is in giving money to the trainer, and of course that's where Baffert go in trouble, in that it should obviously be paid to the owner.

I agree with that 100%. If you are going to pay a fee it should go to the owner.

[blackthroatedwind]

It's not dissimilar to my feelings about jockey's and advertising. If the jockey wants to, at least, split the money with the owner it's fine, but how the owner could be cut out is beyond me.

I have no problem with people profiting legitimately but it's all about fairness.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

It's not dissimilar to my feelings about jockey's and advertising. If the jockey wants to, at least, split the money with the owner it's fine, but how the owner could be cut out is beyond me.

I have no problem with people profiting legitimately but it's all about fairness.

Yeah no kidding. If you are going to pay $50k for Prado to wear advertising on his pants while he is riding your horse then you should get a cut of the money. I agree 100% again.

Originally Posted by eurobounce

I agree with that 100%. If you are going to pay a fee it should go to the owner.

Owners don't care. If your horse is so good that the trainer can get an appearance fee, the owner is more than happy to let the trainer keep it. Only great horses get trainers appearance fees. The purse usually is big enough.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Hoisttheflag

Owners don't care. If your horse is so good that the trainer can get an appearance fee, the owner is more than happy to let the trainer keep it. Only great horses get trainers appearance fees. The purse usually is big enough.

And you are basing this on.....what?


My guess is that owners, the ones who pay for everything AND give 10% to the trainer AND jockey when they win, might be more than interested in appearance fees should they be given.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

And you are basing this on.....what?


My guess is that owners, the ones who pay for everything AND give 10% to the trainer AND jockey when they win, might be more than interested in appearance fees should they be given.

This scenario of appearance fees is so rare and the instances where it happened the owners were billionaires. I am sure they were saying good for Baffert, as long as the horse wins. This isn't golf, it is horse racing. Appearance fees are very rare in horse racing. A trainer isn't going to get an appearance fee unless the horse is a superstar. People don't come out to see horses unless they are Smarty Jones types, and those types earn the owners plenty. Most owners probably prefer to let the trainers take appearance fees than give out seasons.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Hoisttheflag

This scenario of appearance fees is so rare and the instances where it happened the owners were billionaires. I am sure they were saying good for Baffert, as long as the horse wins. This isn't golf, it is horse racing. Appearance fees are very rare in horse racing. A trainer isn't going to get an appearance fee unless the horse is a superstar. People don't come out to see horses unless they are Smarty Jones types, and those types earn the owners plenty. Most owners probably prefer to let the trainers take appearance fees than give out seasons.

Now you are saying they allow the trainers to get the appearance fee instead of giving them shares ( or a share ) in a stallion prospect? That would be an entirely different thing....right? In that case they, the owners that is, would be getting the appearance or at least in trade.

I agree, they are rare, but my guess is owners AT LEAST want to know if the trainer is getting an appearance fee ( once again, this is where Baffert got himself in trouble ) and my guess is they want some, if not all, of it.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Now you are saying they allow the trainers to get the appearance fee instead of giving them shares ( or a share ) in a stallion prospect? That would be an entirely different thing....right? In that case they, the owners that is, would be getting the appearance or at least in trade.

I agree, they are rare, but my guess is owners AT LEAST want to know if the trainer is getting an appearance fee ( once again, this is where Baffert got himself in trouble ) and my guess is they want some, if not all, of it.

The only horses that are capable of getting an appearance fee for an owner are Classic winners. Maybe a horse like Cigar. Nobody else. Tracks provide them to bring in people. The owner might want to know but why would they care. No trainer is going to put an elite horse into a race simply for an appearance fee. In fact, I can't recall more than a few appearance fees, and only know of one for sure and that was Baffert.

Just curious, are these trainers getting shares or a couple seasons? I always thought a couple seasons. A share in some of these, like an Empire Maker would be worth millions to Frankel.

[blackthroatedwind]

They get shares ( 1 to 2 is my understanding ) in most cases.

Others here would know better than me however.

Originally Posted by Hoisttheflag

The only horses that are capable of getting an appearance fee for an owner are Classic winners. Maybe a horse like Cigar. Nobody else. Tracks provide them to bring in people. The owner might want to know but why would they care. No trainer is going to put an elite horse into a race simply for an appearance fee. In fact, I can't recall more than a few appearance fees, and only know of one for sure and that was Baffert.

Just curious, are these trainers getting shares or a couple seasons? I always thought a couple seasons. A share in some of these, like an Empire Maker would be worth millions to Frankel.

Usually shares. I wonder if the Storm Cat trainer got one. Imagine that.