Jumps racing for the small owners??

Thud

a snapshot of jumps racing nowadays:

http://www.irishracing.com/cards/Naas_Sun_22nd_Feb_2015_4_50.html

11 Entries: 5 from Gigginstown, 4 from Ricci and 2 from Wylie.
Propping up the industry or crowding out smaller owners??

Volvic12

Agree - serious problem in National Hunt racing.
Irish Racing is dominated by JP, Gigginstown and Ricci. Between them, they are taking every bit of prizemoney on offer. Also means that punter is affected as these owners tend not to run their horses against eachother.

sting60

Thud wrote: »

a snapshot of jumps racing nowadays:

http://www.irishracing.com/cards/Naas_Sun_22nd_Feb_2015_4_50.html

11 Entries: 5 from Gigginstown, 4 from Ricci and 2 from Wylie.
Propping up the industry or crowding out smaller owners??

Gigginstown/ricci/JP/wylie have taken over 80% of all prize money in Ireland this season.

Panrich

This surely will drive any sensible small owners out of the game eventually. You will always have the likes of the independently wealthy owner breeder who'll have a few in training but the pickings are going to be slim. Even the next level of owners like Dr Lambe and Barry Connell must be beginning to look twice. There is a huge risk when these mega-owners get fed up or die off, that the tradition of racehorse owning and the small trainers will be long gone. Look at Charlie Swan and Joanna Morgan recent announcements. There will be many more to come I fear.

Volvic12

Anyone have any suggestions what could be done to help fix this problem??

Panrich

Panrich wrote: »

This surely will drive any sensible small owners out of the game eventually. You will always have the likes of the independently wealthy owner breeder who'll have a few in training but the pickings are going to be slim. Even the next level of owners like Dr Lambe and Barry Connell must be beginning to look twice. There is a huge risk when these mega-owners get fed up or die off, that the tradition of racehorse owning and the small trainers will be long gone. Look at Charlie Swan and Joanna Morgan recent announcements. There will be many more to come I fear.

Also factor in the politics.

How can horse racing argue for support when it is putting money into the pocket of JP and Ricci etc?

We all know you can debate the finer points around whether they put more in than they take out. But the man in the street doesn't see it like that.

Volvic12

Volvic12 wrote: »

Anyone have any suggestions what could be done to help fix this problem??

The French 'coupling' rule would be a start.

Thud

Volvic12 wrote: »

Anyone have any suggestions what could be done to help fix this problem??

The majority of money to be made in the jumps industry is from prize money rather than breeding, you'd have to think funding it will be under question if 80% is going to the large owners....probably only a matter of time until they dominate the jumps breeding scene also so the trickle down of money to smaller breeders becomes less also

radharc

Deleted User wrote: »

The French 'coupling' rule would be a start.

Don't see how that would make any difference to be honest.

Another huge drawback is that we are missing out on great rivalries and matches. Racing is the poorer when Faugheen, Vautour, Annie Power etc are extremely unlikely to ever meet on a racecourse.

Peintre Celebre

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The French 'coupling' rule would be a start.

?

This wouldn't help in the slightest.


Something like races with restricted eligibility, say for horses purchased below 50k at auction etc. Aren't there similar ones on the flat, like the Tattersall or Goffs races

Panrich

It's also harder for the man on the street to feel an empathy with the owners/trainers of these blue bloods. Gone are the days of real characters like Charmain Hill and Anthony Robinson etc. I don't get a sense of national pride seeing one of Ricci's or Wylies coming up the Cheltenham hill in front like I remember with the likes of Brave Inca, Imperial Call Hardyeustace or Our Conor.

AndersLimpar

Panrich wrote: »

It's also harder for the man on the street to feel an empathy with the owners/trainers of these blue bloods. Gone are the days of real characters like Charmain Hill and Anthony Robinson etc. I don't get a sense of national pride seeing one of Ricci's or Wylies coming up the Cheltenham hill in front like I remember with the likes of Brave Inca, Imperial Call Hardyeustace or Our Conor.

This is very true.

Its one of the reasons also that I dont have a great love for flat racing, there is no real connection with the common man

sting60

IMO the way forward is to reduce prize money for all graded races(80% won by billionaires). Money cannot be a factor for the big owners and prestige the major factor.10yrs ago a decent horse at the ptp could be got for 30k that horse is now 300k and is a very closed shop.that massive increase in prices is not seen anywhere in the industry only at the very top.we have seen high profile trainers pack it in recently and that is only the very tip of the iceberg.one trainer who won big races at cheltenham is now but a cattle farmer another current trainer does a milk round to keep his yard open.HRI were asked by me how much money is spent in France each year purchasing nh horses,omerta.this is a very serious issue but nothing will be done about it for very obvious reasons.

Peintre Celebre

Peintre Celebre wrote: »

?

This wouldn't help in the slightest.


Something like races with restricted eligibility, say for horses purchased below 50k at auction etc. Aren't there similar ones on the flat, like the Tattersall or Goffs races

Maybe it wouldn't. I suppose I was thinking more of JP with that comment but even then maybe not.

Agreed it wouldn't affect Ricci much. Surely though it's a good way of exposing the oddity that so many horses are owned by so few people and creating pressure for change?

Does it not make life harder for broader connections in terms of punting as well?

Panrich

Panrich wrote: »

It's also harder for the man on the street to feel an empathy with the owners/trainers of these blue bloods. Gone are the days of real characters like Charmain Hill and Anthony Robinson etc. I don't get a sense of national pride seeing one of Ricci's or Wylies coming up the Cheltenham hill in front like I remember with the likes of Brave Inca, Imperial Call Hardyeustace or Our Conor.

I agree 100% with this. Particularly Ricci.

Thud

sting60 wrote: »

IMO the way forward is to reduce prize money for all graded races(80% won by billionaires). Money cannot be a factor for the big owners and prestige the major factor.

I would be surprised if two very shrewd businessmen (Ricci and O'Leary) even if it is a hobby are in it for prestige alone, I would think there is a point at when if you hoover up enough of the G1 and G2 races it starts to make profit, especially if you can push out the smaller owners who might have a decent horse every once in a while

zpehtsfd

Thud wrote: »

I would be surprised if two very shrewd businessmen (Ricci and O'Leary) even if it is a hobby are in it for prestige alone, I would think there is a point at when if you hoover up enough of the G1 and G2 races it starts to make profit, especially if you can push out the smaller owners who might have a decent horse every once in a while

If they were looking at this from a business perspective they would have been gone long ago. There is no money to be made in NH racing when your initial outlay is so massive. The numbers just don't add up.

convert

Point-to-points are also going the same way. From what was traditionally an amateur sport, you've got Gordon Elliot and Colin Bowe with numerous horses entered in each race, and Brian Connell with horses there, too. This is really pushing out the 'family' and smaller owners' horses.

nobody told me

convert wrote: »

Point-to-points are also going the same way. From what was traditionally an amateur sport, you've got Gordon Elliot and Colin Bowe with numerous horses entered in each race, and Brian Connell with horses there, too. This is really pushing out the 'family' and smaller owners' horses.

Don't get this what's wrong with Colin bowe running horses in points? He's a point trainer that runs a small few on the track as far I know

Huntley

I'm not sure what the issue is here. If you pump in the most money, attempt to buy the best horses, automatically you will look to compete in the best races. The small owners can compete on this level if they want to shovel in a similar amount of finance, it isn't a closed house. Without significant financial outlay it is unrealistic for them to expect to compete consistently at the top table.

There are plenty of opportunities for small owners/lesser horses but in different circumstances. It's not often you'd see a 80-95 handicap in Kilbeggan dominated by Ricci, Gigginstown and McManus horses.

NaiveMelodies

The really annoying thing about this whole situation for me is the man on the street who proclaims 'Fix' in every bookies under the sun when a Gigginstown/Ricci/JP outsider beats the Gigginstown/Ricci/JP fancy. I would be in the same position to buy any animal I wanted if I had a penny for every time I heard this gripe.
Until horses literally become machines, I'll wince every time I hear it.

If the small owner wants to buy a horse or join a syndicate and accept that he won't be making a profit from the venture(as with the big owners) then they can, and there are plenty of opportunities to do so. Why should anyone have a divine right to own the best horses in the sport?

Fair enough the more romantic racing fan might get their 'Small owner win's the Gold Cup' story less and less.. but romance is quickly becoming a word rarely associated with sport, never mind racing.

pugw

I for one amnt really a fan of irish racing! I don't think it's very competitive! Betting against an odds on shot owned by the aforementioned in every secocond race (exaggeration) it's dar more open in he UK on a Saturday

Francie Barrett

Huntley wrote: »

I'm not sure what the issue is here. If you pump in the most money, attempt to buy the best horses, automatically you will look to compete in the best races. The small owners can compete on this level if they want to shovel in a similar amount of finance, it isn't a closed house. Without significant financial outlay it is unrealistic for them to expect to compete consistently at the top table.

There are plenty of opportunities for small owners/lesser horses but in different circumstances. It's not often you'd see a 80-95 handicap in Kilbeggan dominated by Ricci, Gigginstown and McManus horses.

+1

If a small cadre of owners are hoovering up 80% of the prize money it's only because they account for 80% of the entire total of money spent on horses in a year.

Shemale

It is disappointing seeing decent national hunt horses going for stupid money, it does affect the guys like us why might throw a syndicate together. At the same time 4 people like us bought Our Conor, won the Triumph and he got moved on for a reputed €1,000,000. As far as I know Finians Rainbow was bought for €6k or €8k and the owners won a Champion Chase with him so luck plays a fair part of it too.

Sure it seems shocking to say 80% of prize money has gone to four owners, if you think about it the Irish Champion Hurdle is about €70,000 prize money, the prize money for an 80 - 100 race is somewhere in the region of €7k. These guys are playing at the highest level so of course they will end up with a large percentage of the prize money, between them they must have at least 400 horses with a guesstimated average rating of 135+ and at this level the prize money is far better than for 80 - 100 races.

Francie Barrett

I think a big problem here is the trainers themselves. They're obviously not all bad, but there is a not insignificant minority out there who do their trade no justice at all. About 20 years ago I got involved with a syndicate and a trainer (who incidentally is still going today). We bought the horse as a 4 year old after doing plenty of research and getting advice off a reputable bloodstock agent. The horse was sent in to training, all early signs were positive, so the horse was entered for a bumper, we all turned out for the day with the expectation of a good run. Horse came stone last. Horse subsequently got entered for 7 more bumpers/hurdle races while being gelded in the meantime. Our best run still had us 15 lengths off winning. All throughout those two years, we were told the horse was looking well at home, was improving, just needed gelding, needed decent weather, etc. - the excuses were endless. One day, one of the lads who was down as the registered owner gets a phone called out of the blue. Trainer had someone who was looking to buy the horse, he advised us to sell (at a big loss) as he felt it was unlikely we would get a winner. Trainer even said he had the forms filled out for and said he just needed a signature. We sold. Next thing, horse was entered into a race just a few weeks later with the owner listed as the trainers brother in law. While it only came third that day, we knew then that we had been had. The next time the horse went out, it won and then got sold over to England.

We were naive and not all trainers are like this. But there's plenty out there who will be more than happy to take small owners to the cleaners because we are replaceable.

sdoc13

Shemale wrote: »

It is disappointing seeing decent national hunt horses going for stupid money, it does affect the guys like us why might throw a syndicate together. At the same time 4 people like us bought Our Conor, won the Triumph and he got moved on for a reputed €1,000,000. As far as I know Finians Rainbow was bought for €6k or €8k and the owners won a Champion Chase with him so luck plays a fair part of it too.

Sure it seems shocking to say 80% of prize money has gone to four owners, if you think about it the Irish Champion Hurdle is about €70,000 prize money, the prize money for an 80 - 100 race is somewhere in the region of €7k. These guys are playing at the highest level so of course they will end up with a large percentage of the prize money, between them they must have at least 400 horses with a guesstimated average rating of 135+ and at this level the prize money is far better than for 80 - 100 races.

When you think about it Hurricane fly has won the 3 biggest grade 1 hurdle races and they didnt win the biggest handicap in the PP at christmas. Take out that prize money and the percentage that they have won would be pushing 90%

FIVE2_THREE

OK....Horse racing is a capitalist sport. It is not a communist based industry. The "little guy" has no chance of competing because he is CHEAP. you can't get lemonade from stones. just examine how much money the elite of the sport puts into their operation and how much the little guy puts into his and the difference is clear. obviously money doesn't secure success (see Godolphin) but it sure does help when it comes to making certain decisions. Horse racing is like war. He who has the biggest guns and the biggest GDP can invade countries and lay waste to everything without anybody saying anything because he who has the biggest guns makes the rules.

FIVE2_THREE

Huntley wrote: »

I'm not sure what the issue is here. If you pump in the most money, attempt to buy the best horses, automatically you will look to compete in the best races. The small owners can compete on this level if they want to shovel in a similar amount of finance, it isn't a closed house. Without significant financial outlay it is unrealistic for them to expect to compete consistently at the top table.

There are plenty of opportunities for small owners/lesser horses but in different circumstances. It's not often you'd see a 80-95 handicap in Kilbeggan dominated by Ricci, Gigginstown and McManus horses.

I agree. I hear the same stuff year after year when Coolmore succeeds. people forget the massive amounts of money it takes to run their operations. Feeding 100-150 horses year round is not cheap. An operation like Coolmore pays American taxes, Irish taxes and Australian taxes on top of employing people in those three countries year round. add in the vet bills and the horses who don't turn a profit and it's clear to see how most big owners can easily operate at a loss. while the little guy has a handful of horses that he paid little money for and if he has a good horse most of the time he sales it for a profit.

Thud

FIVE2_THREE wrote: »

OK....Horse racing is a capitalist sport. It is not a communist based industry. The "little guy" has no chance of competing because he is CHEAP. you can't get lemonade from stones. just examine how much money the elite of the sport puts into their operation and how much the little guy puts into his and the difference is clear. obviously money doesn't secure success (see Godolphin) but it sure does help when it comes to making certain decisions. Horse racing is like war. He who has the biggest guns and the biggest GDP can invade countries and lay waste to everything without anybody saying anything because he who has the biggest guns makes the rules.

Yes but flat racing is international and has huge breeding money behind it so it can survive even if pushes out the small owners in Ireland (and all it's classics start to lose prestige), jumps racing doesn't have the same international appeal or bloodstock money so if it ends up where most cards are made up of runners from the same 4 owners the incentive for government funding is gone, man on the street will lose interest and the sport will start to die off...

sting60

Francie Barrett wrote: »

I think a big problem here is the trainers themselves. They're obviously not all bad, but there is a not insignificant minority out there who do their trade no justice at all. About 20 years ago I got involved with a syndicate and a trainer (who incidentally is still going today). We bought the horse as a 4 year old after doing plenty of research and getting advice off a reputable bloodstock agent. The horse was sent in to training, all early signs were positive, so the horse was entered for a bumper, we all turned out for the day with the expectation of a good run. Horse came stone last. Horse subsequently got entered for 7 more bumpers/hurdle races while being gelded in the meantime. Our best run still had us 15 lengths off winning. All throughout those two years, we were told the horse was looking well at home, was improving, just needed gelding, needed decent weather, etc. - the excuses were endless. One day, one of the lads who was down as the registered owner gets a phone called out of the blue. Trainer had someone who was looking to buy the horse, he advised us to sell (at a big loss) as he felt it was unlikely we would get a winner. Trainer even said he had the forms filled out for and said he just needed a signature. We sold. Next thing, horse was entered into a race just a few weeks later with the owner listed as the trainers brother in law. While it only came third that day, we knew then that we had been had. The next time the horse went out, it won and then got sold over to England.

We were naive and not all trainers are like this. But there's plenty out there who will be more than happy to take small owners to the cleaners because we are replaceable.

Test case carraig Willy comes to mind.

FIVE2_THREE

Thud wrote: »

Yes but flat racing is international and has huge breeding money behind it so it can survive even if pushes out the small owners in Ireland (and all it's classics start to lose prestige), jumps racing doesn't have the same international appeal or bloodstock money so if it ends up where most cards are made up of runners from the same 4 owners the incentive for government funding is gone, man on the street will lose interest and the sport will start to die off...

I doubt it. they have been jumping horses just as long as they have been running them on the flat for 300 years. this isn't the first time the little guy has found himself under threat. and it isn't the last. there is no shortage of sponsors willing to attach their name to a race for advertisement.