horse owners

Kasept · #1 11-11-2006, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oracle80

How is the public hurt by this?
And when does the public ever pay part of the owners purchase price or day rate or vet bills or shoe bills?

Mike.. Come on.. You can't be serious... Every time the public places a bet they are paying into the system that the owners are working toward capitalizing on... From every standpoint..

Yes they (owners) all lose money... But that's not the public's problem..

#2 11-11-2006, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kasept

Mike.. Come on.. You can't be serious... Every time the public places a bet they are paying into the system that the owners are working toward capitalizing on... From every standpoint..

Yes they (owners) all lose money... But that's not the public's problem..

No Steve its not the publics problem, I agree. But it IS the owner's problem, and if he feels he has to do what he has to do to be successful then so be it.
I'm not talking about the Sheikhs retiring Bern, they obviously could do without the money. But why should a guy whose pumped a lotta money into the business who has lost(like most do) resist his or her chance to get even? Or less behind?

#3 11-11-2006, 05:23 PM

but that's what I'm saying, the betting public fuels the purse money
I'd imagine most horse owners are independently weathly
so they have to have other goals than just adding to their wealth
we need more incentives to keep the good horses running

Kasept · #4 11-11-2006, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oracle80

I'm not talking about the Sheikhs retiring Bern, they obviously could do without the money. But why should a guy whose pumped a lotta money into the business who has lost(like most do) resist his or her chance to get even? Or less behind?

Absolutely.. No argument there at all. For small-medium sized operations especially (Someday Farm.. Cash is King.. etc..), it is perfectly logical and justifiable in fact...

This all gets back to the earlier economic issues which you've talked about before when the tax incentives evaporated in the '80's and the entire structure of the ownership system remorphed into what we have now...

The end of the 'gentleman farmer'.. 'historical family breeder', et al...

Rupert Pupkin · #5 11-11-2006, 06:18 PM

Kasept said, "Yes they (owners) all lose money... But that's not the public's problem.."[/quote]

By the same token, if the public wants to see the horse run more, that's not the owner's problem.

blackthroatedwind · #6 11-11-2006, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Kasept said, "Yes they (owners) all lose money... But that's not the public's problem.."

By the same token, if the public wants to see the horse run more, that's not the owner's problem.[/quote]

Not if the public decided to fight back and stop betting.

Your argument is easy to make but also patently not true.

Danzig · #7 11-11-2006, 06:34 PM

lovely thing about the free market system. you can choose to put your pennies elsewhere.
but hopefully everyone will still get a kick out of watching the horses run, as i enjoy the sport and hope to see it continue for many years to come.
but like any business, there will be ebbs and flows, and you must evolve to suit the climate. right now the climate for horse owners seems good, so i don't see any adjustments being made any time soon.
where they need to make more of an effort is with t.v., as the more advertising $ you can command, the higher the purses can go--that's the only way to really compete with stud fees.

Rupert Pupkin · #8 11-11-2006, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

By the same token, if the public wants to see the horse run more, that's not the owner's problem.

Not if the public decided to fight back and stop betting.

Your argument is easy to make but also patently not true.[/quote]

Not if the owners got out of the business. Then there would be no racing. It works both ways. If there were no owners, there would be no racing. By the same token, if there were no fans(bettors), there would be no racing.

Rupert Pupkin · #9 11-11-2006, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

By the same token, if the public wants to see the horse run more, that's not the owner's problem.

Not if the public decided to fight back and stop betting.

Your argument is easy to make but also patently not true.[/quote]

This whole argument reminds me of something that happened to me about 20 years ago. I was in Las Vegas and I decided to take a taxi to a hotel that was about a mile away from my hotel. When the cab driver realized that I was going a short distance, he said, "You better give me a big tip because I had to wait in a long line and I'm not going to make much on your fare." I said something to the effect that I didn't have that much money on me and I was having a bad run at the tables. He answered, "That's not my problem that you're losing at the tables."

I felt like saying to him, "Well it's not my problem that you waited in a long line."

#10 11-11-2006, 07:06 PM

it's an excellent analogy
the owners, most of who are millionaires and billionaires
complain of losing money
but the fact is the majority of bettors lose money (and probably more than they should)
and most of those are 9 to 5ers
so...kinda hard to feel too bad for the owners
when they can afford to take the risk for big reward
without it coming back on them with an eviction notice
if it things go south...

Honu · #11 11-11-2006, 07:25 PM

Some owners are very wealthy and some are not , Karen and Mickey Taylor were not wealthy people when they bought Slew but became wealthy by getting lucky and getting a good horse.
There are also factors that the public has no concept of, such as the cost for insuring a very good horse, it is mind boggling how much they pay each month to insure good horses and everytime they send them to the track either in the morning or the afternoon they hold their breath that something doesnt happen. There are so many risks involved in owning a good horse that retiring them before something tragic happens is often on peoples minds because they have invested the money ( not just with said good horse but all the crappy one's in between) and the time that it is hard not to want to make something back by retiring them to stud or broodmare duty.
I know that fans fuel the sport but really how many hard core gamblers really care if good horse doesnt race anymore really, I mean if the horse is that good they most likely wont get any odds on them anyway when they run .

#12 11-11-2006, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honu

Some owners are very wealthy and some are not , Karen and Mickey Taylor were not wealthy people when they bought Slew but became wealthy by getting lucky and getting a good horse.
There are also factors that the public has no concept of, such as the cost for insuring a very good horse, it is mind boggling how much they pay each month to insure good horses and everytime they send them to the track either in the morning or the afternoon they hold their breath that something doesnt happen. There are so many risks involved in owning a good horse that retiring them before something tragic happens is often on peoples minds because they have invested the money ( not just with said good horse but all the crappy one's in between) and the time that it is hard not to want to make something back by retiring them to stud or broodmare duty.
I know that fans fuel the sport but really how many hard core gamblers really care if good horse doesnt race anymore really, I mean if the horse is that good they most likely wont get any odds on them anyway when they run .

ok, you want to talk Taylor's
well they raced Slew 7 times at age 4
after his triple crown season
and, like you said, they weren't wealthy...