Smaller owners will never win

Neigh and CNC the stable in question here is Sham Racing who's results speak for themself now requesting payment of fees outstanding ... Communication is two way with every owner.

Len Sham wrote: Neigh and CNC the stable in question here is Sham Racing who's results speak for themself now requesting payment of fees outstanding ... Communication is two way with every owner.

i had no idea which stable was been discussed my post just relates to a friend who owns horses which never ever win and he is pissed off as the trainer keeps on telling him to be patient yet each month he forks out a lot of money to the trainer. He loves his horses but he also wants to lead one into the winning enclosure.

Sorry Len, I thought T was talking in general I didn't know it was directed at a specific stable. Come on T pay your way...... :huh: :ohmy:

Len Sham wrote: MVP 1 as long as expectations are not high you will enjoy the racing ownership. Tottenham having a go at your trainer or trainers who cannot train a flea ... response is take their calls and settle outstanding bills before saying its all bullshit and you love the game , horses can only run up to their ability ....why must trainers have to run after owners for bills .

Maybe the way to go.....

From Sportingpost.

www.sportingpost.co.za/2017/03/independe...ciation-gold-circle/

KZN Owner Body Makes Strides
Local yards feeling the pinch

A “beneficial meeting conducted in good spirit” took place at Greyville last Friday between Gold Circle and KZN’s Independent Owner’s Association (IOA).
Independent Owners Association logo

The latter organisation was recently founded by prolific and passionate KZN owner Brian “Buffalo Bill” Burnard.

The current IOA Board consists of three Directors, namely, Brian, Daryll Marescia and Mayesh Chetty, with the latter pair contributing “immensely and passionately”, from the inception of the Association.

The well-being of the industry and all involved in it was the focus of both parties at the meeting and a few important issues were raised with that in mind.

The possibility of introducing a “central billing system” was discussed. The aim of this initiative would be to eradicate the non-payment of training fees by rogue owners and to ensure that Trainers accounts would be up to date.
The former occurrence has had a negative effect on a few KZN training yards and repercussions have been felt further afield.

The introduction of a “Training Contract” between Trainer and Owner that would ensure the “eradication of the current ambiguities that exist”, was also discussed.

Stakes increases and how they would be implemented was brought to the table. The IOA highlighted the fact that the percentage figure of average stakes money earned per horse compared to the cost of keeping a horse in training had been dropping.

The possible implementation of a minimum training fee was also discussed with the well-being of Trainers in mind.

A few KZN yards have been feeling the pinch in the current economic climate.
The IOA calculated a fee which incorporated the minimum amount required to cover all costs of keeping a horse in training as well as enabling a Trainer to make a living. The IOA are in the process of asking their members to pay at least this minimum fee.

The IOA Board reiterated that prior to any agreements being made on any matters, it would first consult with its Members for their approval, or disapproval. Upon the IOA receiving the official position of Gold Circle pertaining to any issue or issues, it would convene a Members meeting.

Both Gold Circle and the IOA said they wished to quash a rumour doing the rounds in the racing industry that the IOA were intent on a “take over” of Gold Circle.

In fact the IOA have been granted office space at Greyville from which to operate, signalling the intent from both parties to induce industry progress transparently and in harmony.

In light of the above, both parties wish to appeal to the public at large, and the Racing Fraternity in particular, to take no notice of statements made, unless officially made by the IOA or Gold Circle.

the smaller stables are missing a trick here....they should actively be marketing syndication as the primary ownership in their yards...
they should be giving owners an all in cost for the horse - registration ata etc... they should work of 11k per month basic minimum - 8k to training 3k for vets etc ... that 3k should be banked and if not used it can be offset against training fees after a year ... new buyers perhaps think "i can buy a horse for 20k so not that big a deal" but they forget training fees and the fact that a 20k horse is not really a bargain or it would not be unwanted by the market... more trainers that struggle should try to emulate the Maroun dynasty.. buy horses that you think will come early and sprint instead of classic horses... get them racing often so the owners get a run for their money - good or bad - nothing worse than been told "needs time" and then when it finally runs at 3 rising 4 you find you have a sloth... there are enough horses in training sales for new owners to buy something tested but far too many trainers want a "clean horse( i think seriously some do this because they get an income for months and in some cases years from an unraced horse)" without realising that exposed form can be exploited for the benefit of the new owner... Top trainers have the luxury of time but small trainers do not yet how many of them are sitting with babies that are average that they won't race in 2 yr old races because they don't want to expose them as being slow and would rather tell owners of the hidden potential that only they see?

But owners also need to empower themselves...I often wonder if an owner goes to a doctor that keeps treating him for years without any improvement while others with similar ailments are cured why does he continue to use that doctor? Is it because of loyalty, stupidity or just fear? Owners should empower themselves and set deadlines and budgets just as they would do in their Business world... If a trainer buys you a horse and says it will run as an early 2yr old but by June it still is months away from a race(and now the excuse will be the going is too hard so lets wait until spring) get out or move your horse...rather take it to another trainer and let it run last three times in 2 months then feed it for another 6 months because of loyalty. Common sense for both owner and trainer will get the most results... In the old days only the trainers had the race program ... now anyone can get it so when the trainer says no races for 4 months look yourself...
I am not saying owners should train via computer but they can watch replays, use formgrids etc and decide if what the trainer says is true or not...but importantly here betting should not be part of that analysis... some owners get sour because they have had a bet and their horse does not arrive(trainer says work improved) but what they forget is that there are other horses in the field who might also have improved work...
I enjoyed my time owning and would suggest it to anyone as long as they can afford it comfortably and do not think they will get rich racing horses...

Firstly you cannot dictate to a private business i,e trainer what they can charge owners as break even points and cost and standards of living vary from one trainers business to another ..Secondly what is this new owners association doing to try tackle the most important issue and that is increasing stakes VIA INCREASING TURNOVER as the operators currently imo are doing absolutely fuckall and i have had my experiences to prove exactly what im saying..talk is cheap lets see actual results as g.c will play with this new oa

Well said Pirates. This is a case of the operators keeping their friends close and their enemies closer.

Gents this is nit directed at any stable or person...but my view is..
To pay 11k a month actually means you are actually paying 16k per month before tax if you earn a salary. This bill is linked to optimistic hope from the owner in most cases that the horse will be half decent and it will either pay for itself or a part of it. No owner can really enter the ownership brotherhood if he is aiming to make a profit.

If you are a punting man....you hope for graf and first hand information on winning and place chances...betting coops are seldom being landed these days but owners are getting frustrated as the trainer info is no longer as solid but the chance us taken and owners hope a solid bet if landed can pay the bord and lodge.

The real issue is when you spend close to 100 k prior to the horses first run...then see no potential in performance and after 200 k you are on string with the trainer asking you to be patient in the mean time no clear advice us given to you to cut your losses and sell/give off.

its not well known...but well guessed that those owners who pay allow a few trainers to take from Peter and sustain Paul (to cover poor payment) ..as well as trainer shared or owned horses.

In conclusion the small owner cant survive. ..as the small trainer cant afford to be brutally honest, economics and rising costs if living result in increased levels of distrust. The solution is an incentive scheme to help small owners and small trainers buy and train horses. That way costs of owning and training are semi funded. .....releaving pressure all round.

really the sport of kings. ...and those of us that seek s fools gold.

From what I've heard and read so far, syndication is the way to go (for the "small time owner"), much like what Gavin van Zyl did a few years back....eases the burden on owners and mitigates risk for the trainer...win - win recipe.

Lionel wrote: From what I've heard and read so far, syndication is the way to go (for the "small time owner"), much like what Gavin van Zyl did a few years back....eases the burden on owners and mitigates risk for the trainer...win - win recipe.

Syndication is certainly an option but tends to be a somewhat different experience.

(I have run a syndicate in the past so have some exposure to this option).

Firstly - the syndicate will stand or fall on the strength of the nominee. It is that person who effectively needs to 'put it together' and manage it.

Let's assume for a moment that you have the full complement of 20x members so as to dilute the per member cost as much as is possible. Problem number one is finding the 20!

Someone then has to make the decisions. Initially you try to make it as democratic as possible but it soon becomes apparent that only a handful are likely to have both the experience, expertise or interest in doing so. So effectively the nominee calls the shots with the majority acting as 'sleeping' partners.

The nominee then also has to manage the 'coming and going' of members as participants often lose interest quite quickly; particularly as nothing happens for most of the time.

Cash flow management can also become an issue if members default on their subscriptions.

Disgruntled or bored members tend to eventually view the horse as the property of the nominee with them simply funding his/her pleasure.

If you are lucky enough to attract experienced owners who understand the sport then you inevitably run into problems regarding strategy as everyone believes they have the answers & are quick to voice them. This inevitably leads to accusations of the nominee being a dictator!

In hindsight I have come to realise that I do not have a particularly large ego insofar as owning horses is concerned. I have absolutely no need to experience leading in winners or to be seen as being associated with horse X or Y.

I can enjoy an 'ownership' experience by following a particular horse & backing it when it runs. I am sure I get just as much pleasure when my 'horse to follow' wins as the owner might. Furthermore - backing it allows me to benefit financially without the costs of keep.

The problem with ownership in any form is that it becomes progressively more uneconomical to own them with each passing year. Making that reality palatable to prospective new participants is increasingly difficult. Everybody understands (sort of!) that it is not a financial proposition but the reality becomes irksome as time goes on & the inevitable setbacks occur.

So - for example - getting a call late on a Friday evening to advise that your horse has been rushed to the animal clinic with colic & that the procedure is likely to cost you R35k (and probably end its career) is hardly conducive to promoting continued participation.

For the great majority of racing people simply punting as & when the mood takes you might well be the best way in which to participate.

Abc Syndicate was great, we still have colour etc

In fact I think every runner we had was a winner

Sobering thoughts .... :ohmy:

For me personally I do like the 'vibe' associated with ownership ... but definitely as time goes by the 'lure' is diminishing - mostly because of the spiraling costs; imo the best way to enjoy ownership is to get together 4 or 5 people who understand the risks (so most likely would have been part of some type of ownership before) - more than 5 it gets difficult to manage (if you can find them to begin with) and less than 4 it gets really expensive; it works best if all members are familiar with the trainer so that there are no big 'shocks' when it comes to bills etc. It also improves the experience if all partners can at least show up and share a table when your pride and joy finally makes it to the races.

So I agree with Mr H in that the 'smaller' trainers MUST get more pro-active in order to survive - they would need to take more risks by buying on spec, or alternatively contact all their current and previous patrons before a sale to gauge interest - but sitting back and waiting for new owners to approach is not going to work ....