Which (if any) 3-yr-olds will run next year?

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It would also lead to issues when dealing with Southern Hemisphere horses. It is an interesting idea but there are too many problems associated with it. Capping the number of foals per year does the same thing without all the complications. You need to find a way to decrease the value of the stallions a bit without to help the entire market. By capping the number of foals, you will increase the quality of books of mares to the top stallions by eliminateing the lesser mares. That in turn means many mares currently being overbred will need to find a lesser stallion which in turn will lead to lesser mares at the bottom of the chain finding racing a better option.

How about foals by stallion age? If you want to stand a 3yo he can only cover 20 mares. If you want to stand a 4yo he can only cover 50 mares. Then you have a set amount for 5yos and up. You could easily factor in Southern Hemisphere horses that way by setting a number for the SH horses by age. If you truly have a horse that can't race and want to stand him at stud as a 3yo or 4yo you could on a limited basis but if you have a horse capable of racing there is less incentive to send him to the shed while limited to a book of 50.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

How about foals by stallion age? If you want to stand a 3yo he can only cover 20 mares. If you want to stand a 4yo he can only cover 50 mares. Then you have a set amount for 5yos and up. You could easily factor in Southern Hemisphere horses that way by setting a number for the SH horses by age. If you truly have a horse that can't race and want to stand him at stud as a 3yo or 4yo you could on a limited basis but if you have a horse capable of racing there is less incentive to send him to the shed while limited to a book of 50.

That is still too complicated. Cap the number at 90 for any age and you will lower the value of the stallion but they will still be valuble. They may raise the prices a bit to compensate but the market will not bear a wholesale rise in stud fees, they are overvalued now. You cant destroy the breeding industry because thousands of horses are owned and raced by those same people. Racing horses will be the first thing they will cut out.The 2 industries need to be more aligned and by nudging the value of stallions down it will have a trickledown effect on the whole breeding industry which should help the racing side. But doing things radically wont help. The fact is that many of our biggest owners are involved because they are trying to hit a homerun with a stallion deal. You have to still have that carrot to dangle or they will go elsewhere which will not be a good thing for anyone. But if the top were lowered while still being lucrative the same effect of them leaving should not be felt.

[Danzig]

farms make a deal based on what they know a horse can draw at stud, x's the first couple years they can get that fee, x's # of mares bred. that # sets the initial price. most farms who set up these huge deals know they have to 'get out' after those first few seasons, while the name of that horse is still big, and before any of those first crops hit the track--hopefully to do well, but more often then not, horses stud fees decrease.
once they lock in a price, they can't take the chance of the horse going in a tailspin and lowering his value at stud. much as we like to think WE understand that horses are not robots, the truth is that losses will lower future value--take discreet cat for instance. he's really lowered his value. of course he's going to stand for his owner, so it's not as tho a big syndicate was put together, and there are part owners to keep happy. of course at times you also have horses such as lawyer ron, who improved his value at four, and will command a higher fee at retirement now than had he foregone racing this year.
also, once a syndicate is put together, and value set, insurance will have to meet that, pushing premiums thru the roof if you continue to race the horse--that's what forced smartys retirement.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by merasmag

why do you say that? i think stud fees are ridiculously cheap (cpt for maybe corinthian)...plus, don't most deals also include some sortof deal on the foal(s)...the owners on both sides would just have to get into bed with each other too...for the good of the game of course

Stud fees are only considered cheap in bizzaro world (see Jerry Seinfield)

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Stud fees are only considered cheap in bizzaro world (see Jerry Seinfield)

street sense at 75k
hard spun is 50k
discreet cat, 30k
rockport harbor (i just read) 20k--that's high imo.
hell, i think they're all high anymore. look at friends lake for instance!

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

street sense at 75k
hard spun is 50k
discreet cat, 30k
rockport harbor (i just read) 20k--that's high imo.
hell, i think they're all high anymore. look at friends lake for instance!

I did see some nice Friends Lake yearlings...

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by merasmag

if you have a chance of selling a yearling for over 2 million u won't pay 20 k to get him??? then u shouldn't be a breeder, u should be a 2 dolla bettor

There aren't very many 2 million dollar yearlings by 20k stallions. Plus virtually all sales over 1 million are scripted anyway

[Danzig]

this fits perfectly in this thread...just read this in the 10/20 bloodhorse (which i got yesterday, thanks so much bloodhorse for the bc preview which i got days AFTER the event)--in the 'what's going on here' article by dan liebman:


'If you think those with interests in stallions don't place horses with various consignors and run up the prices to infalte stallion averages, you haven't been paying attention.'

also, meras, regarding chace being upset. did you read the link, and catch the name of the immediate underbidder? it was the new, but undisclosed, owner. guy had nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by helping run up the price on his OWN HORSE. but chace didn't know it was his horse, he thought it still belonged to someone else. did that guy find out chace was interested, and gamble that he could drive up the fee? at any rate, it worked...til chace found out who the owner was, and was able to lower the price.

right now it's only voluntary to disclose ownership. why? who does it benefit?

certainly not the buyer.

caveat emptor.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

also, meras, regarding chace being upset. did you read the link, and catch the name of the immediate underbidder? it was the new, but undisclosed, owner. guy had nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by helping run up the price on his OWN HORSE. but chace didn't know it was his horse, he thought it still belonged to someone else. did that guy find out chace was interested, and gamble that he could drive up the fee? at any rate, it worked...til chace found out who the owner was, and was able to lower the price.

right now it's only voluntary to disclose ownership. why? who does it benefit?

certainly not the buyer.

caveat emptor.

There is more fiction involved with this story than Harry Potter.