Dubai Esc. Out

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Its good you posted this. It will not last as a viable business if it does not provide entertainment. Thats what you guys dont get. Short term view. You look at a business and of course as an owner you try to find easy spot. But who pays for the GD purse in the long run smart guy? If people dont find the betting entertaining, then good by purse money.

so i take this as your admission that you don't bet on races anymore because they aren't "entertaining?"

Since I assume that you still wager on races even through your clear disgust for the sport....then i contend that THAT, is "who pays for the GD purse" smart guy. if you've got a brilliant idea of how to make the game more entertaining, let's hear it. But I am pretty darn sure that you telling someone else what to do with their money and their investment is not the answer.

I may be young, but I am smart enough to know that's not how the world works -- people like you don't get to tell people like them what to do with the things they own, having bought with their own money. Almost Orwellian actually -- it seems you've got a really great direction for us to be heading in here, wiseguy.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

so i take this as your admission that you don't bet on races anymore because they aren't "entertaining?"

Since I assume that you still wager on races even through your clear disgust for the sport....then i contend that THAT, is "who pays for the GD purse" smart guy. if you've got a brilliant idea of how to make the game more entertaining, let's hear it. But I am pretty darn sure that you telling someone else what to do with their money and their investment is not the answer.

I may be young, but I am smart enough to know that's not how the world works -- people like you don't get to tell people like them what to do with the things they own, having bought with their own money. Almost Orwellian actually -- it seems you've got a really great direction for us to be heading in here, wiseguy.

Cooperation between all the tracks and racing entities. A true National Authority like other major sports have. If NASCAR can make a mint by incessantly running automobiles around a track, I should certainly think horse racing could stand on its own. This is one of the most fractured entertainment industries in the country.

And for Christ sakes I am not telling anybody what to do with their horses. I am saying this sport is dying a slow death. Do you get that Mr. 1984? Or it would be communistic for diff. entities with in the sport to unite? Good lord.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Cooperation between all the tracks and racing entities. A true National Authority like other major sports have. If NASCAR can make a mint by incessantly running automobiles around a track, I should certainly think horse racing could stand on its own. This is one of the most fractured entertainment industries in the country.

And for Christ sakes I am not telling anybody what to do with their horses. I am saying this sport is dying a slow death. Do you get that Mr. 1984? Or it would be communistic for diff. entities with in the sport to unite? Good lord.

that has nothing to do with what you've been saying. you've been bemoaning the fact that star horses like azeri were running in races in order to "win" them instead of to "compete" and provide an entertaining race for the fans. that's my beef with what you said. i have no delusions that racing is in dire straits and needs to figure something out and that all entities need to work together -- that portion of the conversation has nothing to do with why i even jumped in.

i jumped in because i said you were talking like a crazy person complaining about how star horses are campaigned.

you've totally just changed the subject and are now trying to talk back to me with some business that i completely agree with, not anything at all having to do with the original portion of your posting that i took issue with -- you'll note, that my issue in my original post was from a quote of yours -- a quote of exactly ONE line.....refer back to it if you must.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

that has nothing to do with what you've been saying. you've been bemoaning the fact that star horses like azeri were running in races in order to "win" them instead of to "compete" and provide an entertaining race for the fans. that's my beef with what you said. i have no delusions that racing is in dire straits and needs to figure something out and that all entities need to work together -- that portion of the conversation has nothing to do with why i even jumped in.

i jumped in because i said you were talking like a crazy person complaining about how star horses are campaigned.

you've totally just changed the subject and are now trying to talk back to me with some business that i completely agree with, not anything at all having to do with the original portion of your posting that i took issue with -- you'll note, that my issue in my original post was from a quote of yours -- a quote of exactly ONE line.....refer back to it if you must.

Azeri was a personal beef of mine. I admit complete selfishness in wanting to see her run against competition instead of being bored stiff running against the same horses time and again. And I believe in true handicap races her handlers intentions could have been changed by really weighing her down possibly forcing her to face males in more lucrative races instead of shooting for some stupid winning streak against the little leagues while not carrying imposts making for a fair race. They use to do this in handicap races. They would really handicap a horse. And then people would bet.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

that has nothing to do with what you've been saying. you've been bemoaning the fact that star horses like azeri were running in races in order to "win" them instead of to "compete" and provide an entertaining race for the fans. that's my beef with what you said. i have no delusions that racing is in dire straits and needs to figure something out and that all entities need to work together -- that portion of the conversation has nothing to do with why i even jumped in.

i jumped in because i said you were talking like a crazy person complaining about how star horses are campaigned.

you've totally just changed the subject and are now trying to talk back to me with some business that i completely agree with, not anything at all having to do with the original portion of your posting that i took issue with -- you'll note, that my issue in my original post was from a quote of yours -- a quote of exactly ONE line.....refer back to it if you must.

And if we did agree on the state of racing, why did you ask me what I would do? You should have known what should be done if we COMPLETELY AGREE.

oh yes. I like your music.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by pgardn

And if we did agree on the state of racing, why did you ask me what I would do? You should have known what should be done if we COMPLETELY AGREE.

oh yes. I like your music.

we completely agree that something needs to happen, i just wasn't seeing how running azeri against boys was your panacea for the sport -- or the small-scale example of a sport-saving action.

i get what you're saying now -- but we're talking about two different things are once -- plus, perhaps i'm mistaken, but wasn't she getting pretty darn weighted down in a lot of those races?

it's a moot point to ask because this thread will be four pages down by the time i get back from chicago on sunday --

oh well, i've enjoyed our chat!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I may be young, but I am smart enough to know that's not how the world works -- people like you don't get to tell people like them what to do with the things they own, having bought with their own money. Almost Orwellian actually -- it seems you've got a really great direction for us to be heading in here, wiseguy.

I totally agree with you. It's amazing how people think they can tell other people how to invest and spend their money. How in the world can you tell a guy that he should risk millions of dollars by racing his horse an extra year?

Many of these people who do the criticizing would not even risk $100 of their own money on a horse. Yet they would not hesitate to bash an owner for retiring a horse. They expect an owner to fork out millions of dollars to insure a horse for an extra year and also take the risk of the horse dropping millions of dollars in value if the horse doesn't perfom as well the next year.

I would never criticize an owner for selling a horse or for retiring a horse. Why should a guy foresake millions of dollars just for the hell of it. I doubt these same people who crititicize these owners would even foresake a few hundred dollars for the entertainment of others. If these people ever make several million dollars, we will see if they are as sporting as they expect other millionaires to be.

I hope Pgardn gets lucky and somehow makes $20 million the next few years. If he does, we'll see if he spends a few million dollars on horses. If he doesn't, we can all criticize him and tell him if he was a true fan, he would be a sport and spend a few million dollars on horses like some of the other millionaires out there. If he does spend a few million dollars on horses and happens to get a great horse, we can all criticize him if he decides to retire the horse and syndicate him for $30 million. We can tell him that he should run the horse another couple of years.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I totally agree with you. It's amazing how people think they can tell other people how to invest and spend their money. How in the world can you tell a guy that he should risk millions of dollars by racing his horse an extra year?

Many of these people who do the criticizing would not even risk $100 of their own money on a horse. Yet they would not hesitate to bash an owner for retiring a horse. They expect an owner to fork out millions of dollars to insure a horse for an extra year and also take the risk of the horse dropping millions of dollars in value if the horse doesn't perfom as well the next year.

I would never criticize an owner for selling a horse or for retiring a horse. Why should a guy foresake millions of dollars just for the hell of it. I doubt these same people who crititicize these owners would even foresake a few hundred dollars for the entertainment of others. If these people ever make several million dollars, we will see if they are as sporting as they expect other millionaires to be.

I hope Pgardn gets lucky and somehow makes $20 million the next few years. If he does, we'll see if he spends a few million dollars on horses. If he doesn't, we can all criticize him and tell him if he was a true fan, he would be a sport and spend a few million dollars on horses like some of the other millionaires out there. If he does spend a few million dollars on horses and happens to get a great horse, we can all criticize him if he decides to retire the horse and syndicate him for $30 million. We can tell him that he should run the horse another couple of years.

I think we all agree that it makes good short-term business sense for an owner to retire a top-notch horse as soon as possible. pgardn is not disputing that. He said:

Originally Posted by pgardn

And for Christ sakes I am not telling anybody what to do with their horses. I am saying this sport is dying a slow death.

We are saying a few things, but we are not saying it is a bad business decision. However, some owners would be willing to risk 5% of their investiment (insurance) for the pleasure and excitement of seeing their horse run another year. These owners probably think their horse is good enough that it won't disgrace itself enough to lose any breeding value by continuing to run.

Some owners seem to value running their horses as much as the money they are putting at risk. Paulson kept Azeri running even when half the fans thought she should be retired, and she did not disgrace herself. He let Cigar campaign for a 2nd BC Classic, even after he had "nothing else to prove". Lord Darby has kept Ouija Board in training far longer than expected for a mare of her accomplishment.

You might answer that none of these horses had/has the value of Bernardini. But the owners of these other horses also do not have the money of the sheiks, so relatively speaking, the risk/reward/bankroll relationship was probably on a par with the Bernardini decision.

--Dunbar

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

I think we all agree that it makes good short-term business sense for an owner to retire a top-notch horse as soon as possible. pgardn is not disputing that. He said:



We are saying a few things, but we are not saying it is a bad business decision. However, some owners would be willing to risk 5% of their investiment (insurance) for the pleasure and excitement of seeing their horse run another year. These owners probably think their horse is good enough that it won't disgrace itself enough to lose any breeding value by continuing to run.

Some owners seem to value running their horses as much as the money they are putting at risk. Paulson kept Azeri running even when half the fans thought she should be retired, and she did not disgrace herself. He let Cigar campaign for a 2nd BC Classic, even after he had "nothing else to prove". Lord Darby has kept Ouija Board in training far longer than expected for a mare of her accomplishment.

You might answer that none of these horses had/has the value of Bernardini. But the owners of these other horses also do not have the money of the sheiks, so relatively speaking, the risk/reward/bankroll relationship was probably on a par with the Bernardini decision.

--Dunbar

If a horse is sound and the owner wants to run the horse as a 4 or even a 5 year old, that is fine. It's up to the owner. It's his money. If he's willing to take the risk of running his horse another year, then more power to him. But if he decides to retire the horse after its 3 year old year, there is nothing wrong with that either.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I totally agree with you. It's amazing how people think they can tell other people how to invest and spend their money. How in the world can you tell a guy that he should risk millions of dollars by racing his horse an extra year?

That is exactly what happens all the time in every other sport out there. Not only do the fans question every move made by owners of MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, etc teams but the owners even factor in the potential fan response when making their decisions even though it is ultimately the owners money being spent. So the question is, how do we get owners in horse racing to start factoring the fans in to their decisions on horses? Unfortunately, I am at a loss as to how that could happen since the fans are much too willing to be ignored by the owners and yet remain fans (and bettors) of the game.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

That is exactly what happens all the time in every other sport out there. Not only do the fans question every move made by owners of MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, etc teams but the owners even factor in the potential fan response when making their decisions even though it is ultimately the owners money being spent. So the question is, how do we get owners in horse racing to start factoring the fans in to their decisions on horses? Unfortunately, I am at a loss as to how that could happen since the fans are much too willing to be ignored by the owners and yet remain fans (and bettors) of the game.

I actually think it's pretty ridiculous the way people are always criticizing the owners of sports team. I also think it's ridiculous how often the owners fire the coaches. Only one team can win the championship each year. The other 27 teams, or however many teams are in that particular sport will lose. No matter how good of a job the owner, the coach, and the players do, there is still a 95% chance that the team will not win the championship. Fans just don't seem to understand that. Every team can't win. I think fans need to be more realistic about their team's chances of winning a championship. If there are 28 teams in a sport, then your team should win the championship about once every 28 years if they are an average team. You would obviously expect more from a team like the Yankees because they spend so much money. But I don't know how a fan can criticize his team for not spending as much as the Yankees. Most owners can't afford to spend as much as the Yankees. The teams in the smaller markest don't make nearly as much money as the Yankees.

Anyway, as long as a team is being run halfway competently, I don't think people should complain. Every team can't win. Even if every owner did a great job, there would still be a team that has the worst record in the league.