I See They're Sacking

[eljay 1,720]

and the way they (ATC) keep on closing the members lounge they certainly giving the impression that members are not really wanted.     And before Nslram jumps in here baring his teeth at me,  I do not use the members lounge simply because I choose not to, just like he prefers to stay at home and watch his horses race on the box.     So I think it would be pie in the sky to expect any initiative from the club to encourage anything at the moment.       But hey, I could be wrong, as I often have been! 

[shakamaker 10]

Some have touched on it here but why do we mentioned "owners and trainers" as somehow being the same thing? I get that a lot of trainers own their own horses, but in this situation, we're dealing with them "wearing their owner's cap" rather than as a trainer.

For me, all these ideas about incentives for breeders and trainers misses the clear economics of the sport - the only parties racing should be focused on are the owners and the punters. To my mind, if every trainer disappeared but there were owners with horses that needed training, people would put their hand up to train the horse. I'm not sure the same logic holds if all the owners disappeared. 

Similar logic for breeders in my view - if owners are getting a return/some enjoyment from the game they will come back to buy more horses. It all comes down to the owner being happy.

I include punters as we need them to be happy with what's on the track and punting on it given that's where the industry is designed to get all its money from. People are showing less interest in the sport in general but it's even harder to convince new people to come along if you're saying "yes you ran third but we don't pay you any money today because there was only 6 in it"

The other issue for me - and this will be a controversial one here guys so feel free to fling the abuse - the trainers are a cause of a lot of the problems here (but it's not entirely their fault). I would love to know how many owners are consulted and offered the choice of where their horse races. If my experience (several different trainers - from big noters top small time guys - many years in this game) is any indication, there is zero consultation. In the VAST majority of cases, trainers make the decision about where the horse races, not the owner.

In defense of trainers, this makes some sense as how many of their owners know the best conditions for their horse?

But here's the bit that's going to get people going - to my mind, trainers cannot complain if they turn down a smaller field 1950m mobile for $7,500 at Addington to run in a bog with 14 horses at Mot for $6,000. Perhaps someone here can explain it to me, but it makes very little sense to adopt a strategy of lining up in a bigger field for less money with a view to making more money over the long run. This doesn't even factor in the attendance bonuses some tracks offer.

The sad part of all of this is that the game won't change. Even if stakes are increased - and targeted at lower level races or whatever - there won't be more money to owners (in real terms) as trainers will only increase their training rates. It's happened before and will continue to do so. It's not the trainers' fault per se, they don't earn big money generally as a group so it makes sense for them to do so (this is why I say it's not there fault). I don't begrudge them doing it as it's a tough job that probably has the worst 'hourly rate' if you counted all time spent. In saying that, they don't have to be race horse trainers.

This thread started with a reference to the NFL trainers being sacked for poor performance and I would continue the analogy. I am a big time supporter of the Ravens whose QB has a very expensive $120m contract that (arguably) prevents the team from signing other players because so much money is committed to the QB. The team's chances of winning would be greatly improved if it could allocate more money to other players/improve the overall team, but to get that, the QB personally probably needs to take a pay cut to enable the team to make it happen.

Seems pretty apt for racing here too.

 

[tim vince 985]

a better than a middle of the road trainer did an exercise  for a month and his hourly rate he worked out at between 6 and 7 bucks an hour-  I guess it depends on how much your stable earns in that month.  in my case I am in the negative but I am not a professional and no one makes me do it.  if u play golf own a boat etc you are minus but you enjoy it and it costs.

 

professionals are in a different boat.

 

I wonder what basic training fees need to be economical. my guess 70 a day but the market couldn't stand that unless u are one of the top dogs.i know of one n island trainer trains 20-30 winners a year still  charges 30 bucks .  he reckons he would lose a stack of horses if he put up.  I know life for him is a constant financial struggle. I don't know the answer.

[lamour 673]

shakamaker

to my mind, trainers cannot complain if they turn down a smaller field 1950m mobile for $7,500 at Addington to run in a bog with 14 horses at Mot for $6,000.

 

The only explanation I can think of is that they do it to avoid running into a Purdon/Rass. horse that can reel of a final quarter in 25 seconds.

 

 

[shakamaker 10]

3 hours ago, lamour said:

shakamaker

to my mind, trainers cannot complain if they turn down a smaller field 1950m mobile for $7,500 at Addington to run in a bog with 14 horses at Mot for $6,000.

 

The only explanation I can think of is that they do it to avoid running into a Purdon/Rass. horse that can reel of a final quarter in 25 seconds.

 

 

And I get that, but then

a. how often does that happen? and

b. what's  wrong with running second?

Again, no easy answer and natural behaviour for trainers. Their incentive is to aim to win races so their colours are seen winning as their results are their advertising to a large degree. But honestly, having a maiden run second to a Purdon horse at Addington its first seven starts would suit me just fine if I wanted the money out. A way better result than getting to C2 in a hurry and then struggling. I imagine it's tough on trainers too explaining to owners we only need to get smacked around fro 9 more starts and we can race easier horses.

It is hard to argue is that the club with the highest stakes (by some margin) in Alex Park consistently attracts the smallest fields. Clearly, increasing stakes isn't the answer.

The other point to note here too is that the complaint that "you run into a smart Purdon horse at Addington" highlights the problem of using increased stakes as a solution. Keep in mind the 'total stakes pie' isn't getting any larger - this is a racing industry issue all over the world - we're only talking about how we slice the pie. 

The Purdon horse is at Addington because it is better than the other horses it is racing and probably going to win. Therefore, why not win the most it can. If we increase stakes on lower assessed races across the board, surely it only encourages these good 'Purdon' horses to target those races too? I think I'm right in recalling that it was a big deal a couple of years ago (thinking 2-3) that the Purdon team started racing at Methven. I see they have races these days for $7,500-$8,000 stakes for maidens and c1. 

I agree with Tim Vince comments re what the professionals should charge - I anticipate that something at or over $60/day would make sense to take real stress out of loses horses to sales/injury/clients leaving but the industry would stop in a hurry if costs went up that high.

I can only see two options here - grow the 'stakes pie' which clubs like Addington and Alex Park appear to be trying to do with their commercial investments but get hammered for 'ignoring trainers and owners' or perhaps move to handicapping based solely on stakes won within the last x months. Not going to solve it - I doubt it can ever be perfect - but at least all the triers would only be racing other triers.

 

[lonestar 80]

45 minutes ago, shakamaker said:

And I get that, but then

a. how often does that happen? and

b. what's  wrong with running second?

Again, no easy answer and natural behaviour for trainers. Their incentive is to aim to win races so their colours are seen winning as their results are their advertising to a large degree. But honestly, having a maiden run second to a Purdon horse at Addington its first seven starts would suit me just fine if I wanted the money out. A way better result than getting to C2 in a hurry and then struggling. I imagine it's tough on trainers too explaining to owners we only need to get smacked around fro 9 more starts and we can race easier horses.

It is hard to argue is that the club with the highest stakes (by some margin) in Alex Park consistently attracts the smallest fields. Clearly, increasing stakes isn't the answer.

The other point to note here too is that the complaint that "you run into a smart Purdon horse at Addington" highlights the problem of using increased stakes as a solution. Keep in mind the 'total stakes pie' isn't getting any larger - this is a racing industry issue all over the world - we're only talking about how we slice the pie. 

The Purdon horse is at Addington because it is better than the other horses it is racing and probably going to win. Therefore, why not win the most it can. If we increase stakes on lower assessed races across the board, surely it only encourages these good 'Purdon' horses to target those races too? I think I'm right in recalling that it was a big deal a couple of years ago (thinking 2-3) that the Purdon team started racing at Methven. I see they have races these days for $7,500-$8,000 stakes for maidens and c1. 

I agree with Tim Vince comments re what the professionals should charge - I anticipate that something at or over $60/day would make sense to take real stress out of loses horses to sales/injury/clients leaving but the industry would stop in a hurry if costs went up that high.

I can only see two options here - grow the 'stakes pie' which clubs like Addington and Alex Park appear to be trying to do with their commercial investments but get hammered for 'ignoring trainers and owners' or perhaps move to handicapping based solely on stakes won within the last x months. Not going to solve it - I doubt it can ever be perfect - but at least all the triers would only be racing other triers.

 

Shake you make some interesting comments which I can relate to.

Running second to a purdon runner is probably par for the course at addington and yes no harm done if you get $1200 for 2nd to a 2yo or 3 yo who has already won a couple!

Don't actually agree that $60 per day is enough to break even for trainers. Most owners don't look at what the trainer is getting paid per hour more what they are paying per horse per day.  I think the top 100 trainers are probably doing okay on the $40 -$50 mark. (although I know some charge a lot more) . If you take the extreme that the expense for most racing horses feeding is roughly $110 per week and that most in training are only trained up to an hour a day then the costs of $40 are reasonable. All the extras like feed supplements , transport, shoes, dentists and vets are generally paid for by the owner then the only other costs that the trainer has are paying additional staff. Its the small trainer who is actually struggling where he has to meet some of these costs. Owners aren't stupid and they cant sustain paying trainers for poor performance.

[what a post 811]

Theres more to the not running at addington or Auckland than just running against a purdon runner.  Seems those that wonder why trainers don't race at those venues are out of touch with the thinking of the average trainer.   I give you a case of a average horse I watched for a few starts. Horse runs  improving races including last start 4th in an average  maiden field ,trainer decides to run at addington  twice in  those futurity races. Horse gets head kicked in both times in very fast run races that it had no  chance in. Horse runs poorly in next couple of starts and is sacked as apparently not trying(surprised, no). Did however win $800 appearance money.    Another case. Horse runs long last in 6 horse field. I could not understand why trainer would run it.Strange trainer had been running ran it in such strong fields where it had no chance.  Turns out in its last run was running for one of those 15 start bonus things. Won $7500.Trainer owed money by owner that's the only reason he put it in. Sold shortly after as could no longer run fast enough to keep warm. Watch races at the aforementioned tracks and you will see the same handful of stables far, far superior in fast run races.   Quite simply the average trainer  uses his brains  more than the examples I have given. He does not have an endless supply of horses, he has developed the ones he has himself over not just months but sometimes years, he has more respect for his horse  and himself than to run just for the money. He has seen others do that and has seen what happens. Would the average trainer rather get $500 for running last or would he rather get $250 for running third.   You work it out ,just look at where the  biggest fields are.

[shakamaker 10]

6 hours ago, what a post said:

Theres more to the not running at addington or Auckland than just running against a purdon runner.  Seems those that wonder why trainers don't race at those venues are out of touch with the thinking of the average trainer.   I give you a case of a average horse I watched for a few starts. Horse runs  improving races including last start 4th in an average  maiden field ,trainer decides to run at addington  twice in  those futurity races. Horse gets head kicked in both times in very fast run races that it had no  chance in. Horse runs poorly in next couple of starts and is sacked as apparently not trying(surprised, no). Did however win $800 appearance money.    Another case. Horse runs long last in 6 horse field. I could not understand why trainer would run it.Strange trainer had been running ran it in such strong fields where it had no chance.  Turns out in its last run was running for one of those 15 start bonus things. Won $7500.Trainer owed money by owner that's the only reason he put it in. Sold shortly after as could no longer run fast enough to keep warm. Watch races at the aforementioned tracks and you will see the same handful of stables far, far superior in fast run races.   Quite simply the average trainer  uses his brains  more than the examples I have given. He does not have an endless supply of horses, he has developed the ones he has himself over not just months but sometimes years, he has more respect for his horse  and himself than to run just for the money. He has seen others do that and has seen what happens. Would the average trainer rather get $500 for running last or would he rather get $250 for running third.   You work it out ,just look at where the  biggest fields are.

So this is it exactly - I completely agree with this as it is a great illustration of 'what' is happening/how trainers are thinking. Again, as I tried to allude to in my post, I don't think trainers are stupid by any stretch, I think they are trying to do what they can to make a dollar for themselves (the last two words are important there) and there is nothing wrong with that at all. Any person in business for themselves is doing the same thing.

But if this is the case, then raising stakes at Adddington (or anywhere) is not the answer, despite how often it is requested/demanded by trainers. Higher stakes = better horses or at least faster times as everyone is 'racing' to get the thick end of a fatter (phatter?) cheque. Average horses are going to struggle. But the Methven example is a good one - once they raised their stakes the gun stables turned up and smaller time guys got left in the cold.

But what about the non-struggling trainers because they do the same. To take a recent example, Double Shot comes out of a good run in a crazy 1.54 MR for a maiden at Ashburton in its first start on Boxing Day. Its second run is in the wet grass at Mot on Sunday in a $6,500 when there was an $8,500 maiden (that incidentally was won in 1.59MR at Addington on Friday night. The difference between first in both races was $1,000 which is a bit less than a month's training.

I get they are horses and I am more than happy to hear - we wanted the grass, 1950m is brutal at Addington if you draw outside the 5, the horse isn't that good the time was misleading. But if that is the case, the discussion with changing racing needs to be things like start positions, handicapping, race distances or angled mobile gates rather than simply increasing stakes

[tim vince 985]

if u think the top 100 trainers are doing okay on40-50 day  I cant agree- there are economies of scale-  staff is the biggie I would say top 10 trainers might do okay but I would  guess the principal reason is that if you have big numbers and big owners u probably have a better quality horse which get sold.

The trainers 10 percent on a sales would be significant -

also a big stable if you are a driver as well like purdons herlihy   etc u get a good income from driving fees as well.

 

top 100 not a hope in my view- have a look at the premiership tables who was 100th last year - look at the stakes earned  .Also if a battler want to get more horses he inevitably has to take shares in horses or do deals- generally a good way to lose money.

[MisterEd 332]

You can not beat the grass track racing. Bigger dividends ( the main drawcard for me)------Better atmosphere-----less wear and tear for the horses--------the races are more even on the grass surface. You only have to look at the numbers nominating to see this is the preferred option for many.

[tim vince 985]

mr ed I love the grass tracks like u - yup  bigger fields generally mean bigger dividends

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MisterEd said:

You can not beat the grass track racing. Bigger dividends ( the main drawcard for me)------Better atmosphere-----less wear and tear for the horses--------the races are more even on the grass surface. You only have to look at the numbers nominating to see this is the preferred option for many.

Are you sure that there is less wear and tear on a horse?????

I think racing on the grass would take more out of a horse than a clay track!

You only need to watch many of the horses walking down the straight absolutely exhausted.

Certainly grass tracks are a great leveller.

You are either a grass track plugger or you aren't.

Most of the very good horses never start on grass as they are normally very good gaited and the grass trips them up.

[what a post 811]

There seems to be agreement on here that trainers look to place their horses in races they will be competitive in, but will sometimes line up as long as they think their horse will come out of the race without having a run that will flatten it physically and mentality. Give that trainer a choice of a suitable field with a stake of $8000 at addington,or a similar field worth $5000 at motukarara then most would run in the $8000 race.  I do agree with mr ed that grass track racing has more appeal for the reasons given,so there needs to be a reasonable difference in stakes but ultimately it is about running where you are competitive for the most money.   Those who programme races should think outside the square to achieve this. I heard on trackside them mention there is a race for progeny of sires with service fees under $5,000 coming up. Seems an interesting concept worth a crack. How about instead of the 15 start bonus thing at addington they instead put that money into having a race at each race meeting run for say double the winning stake money. This race being drawn on trackside at the commencement of each meeting.

[Guest]

Not sure why some trainers line up their horses continually on tracks that don't really suit them.

Example is Maybe Flyin.

Think it has won about 5 races after its win at Mot last Sunday.

Unbelievably it has never won on clay in close to 60 starts, so definitely could only be called a grass tracker and waste of time having in work when there is no grass track racing.

Never be able to be sold overseas as no overseas grass track racing.

[what a post 811]

Brodie. If you look at maybe Flynn it has been targeting grass track racing for at least its last 20 starts, only running on the all weather about 3 times(twice on its home track) .

[MisterEd 332]

6 hours ago, Brodie said:

Are you sure that there is less wear and tear on a horse?????

I think racing on the grass would take more out of a horse than a clay track!

You only need to watch many of the horses walking down the straight absolutely exhausted.

Certainly grass tracks are a great leveller.

You are either a grass track plugger or you aren't.

Most of the very good horses never start on grass as they are normally very good gaited and the grass trips them up.

Yes possibly more exhausting if wet, but easier on the joints etc with less jarring up was my thinking.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, MisterEd said:

Yes possibly more exhausting if wet, but easier on the joints etc with less jarring up was my thinking.

Not too sure about that?

Dont profess to be an expert and trainers would definitely know, but I reckon there is more likelihood that a horse would be 

injured leg wise by racing on a grass track, due to the indentations in the tracks and horse crossings etc.

[tim vince 985]

crossings are more of a worry to the punter so many gallop over them- never been able to figure out why they cant be bought to the level of the track- I don't think grass or grit is any difference for horses- if u have a tendon problem like a few of mine best not to line up on a soft tack. when they say grass horses I think it is more like horses aint good enough to be competitive at  alex park addington.

[JOHNRYAN 62]

On ‎19‎/‎01‎/‎2016 at 1:37 PM, Brodie said:

Are you sure that there is less wear and tear on a horse?????

I think racing on the grass would take more out of a horse than a clay track!

You only need to watch many of the horses walking down the straight absolutely exhausted.

Certainly grass tracks are a great leveller.

You are either a grass track plugger or you aren't.

Most of the very good horses never start on grass as they are normally very good gaited and the grass trips them up.

If they were very good gaited surely the grass wouldn't trip them up at all

Sheesh

[JOHNRYAN 62]

There is no way that 100 trainers are doing very well and in all my time training I found that the owners more than the trainers wanted to race their horses on grass tracks and it's easy to understand why. Why would you take your family to Addington or Auckland? You'd take them to a grass track Sunday meeting surely.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, JOHNRYAN said:

If they were very good gaited surely the grass wouldn't trip them up at all

Sheesh

God you are an absolute plonker!!

Are you not able to understand very much?

Did you not realise "Mr Thinks He is the only onE That Is Right" that grass tracks are not as flat as all weather tracks, and they do have indentations at times, which can cause horses to stumble.

 

[JOHNRYAN 62]

If a grass track tripped up good gaited horses then there should be lots of horses falling over especially the ones not as good gaited. Grass tracks are so popular in this country. Only time you see full fields. So why would there be rough grass tracks that trip up even the best gaited horses? Doesn't make sense. I've raced many on grass and had very few complaints with the tracks.

 

[JOHNRYAN 62]

Call me a plonker if you want. Takes one to know one.

[2Piper 408]

On 05/01/2016 at 7:08 PM, JOHNRYAN said:

Coaches of the under performing American Football Teams.

When will Harness Racing in NZ learn to do the same? Or do we all just quietly watch it go under?

6 less race meetings this season. 15 next season.

Wow great solution there.

So where are we now with the leaders of HRNZ ? Performing or not ?

[eljay 1,720]

We are coming up to the "Annual General Meeting Season" and no doubt as usual there will be next to no elections for the positions on the Club Committees/Boards, meaning either no one can be bothered getting into administration (the Kiwi She'll-Be-Right psyche) or the financial return just does not warrant the time involved.     The Auckland Club for example, has created such  "a monster" that the Board Members need to be virtually full timers.      This whole situation means that the standard of administration is regrettably in danger of lapsing into mediocrity where in these troubled times of the Industry, needs to be heading in completely the opposite direction.     This was foreseeable some years age  when less and less elections for positions started occurring to the stage these days where elections are almost redundant.      Yes, I know the Industry is now run as a business  rather than an enthusiastic band of volunteers but no reason for people to shun making themselves available for their clubs.