Which (if any) 3-yr-olds will run next year? - Page 4

Danzig · #61 10-31-2007, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

But see, that's just it! Everyone talks around what happened with TGM and his $16 million tag, but never in any sort of way I can actually understand. What? What happened? Pleeeasssee someone tell meeeee....

In the first example you gave- people can actually do that? Offer up a horse that's been sold? Then what, the purchasing agent just makes sure to keep bidding so that the people who bought the horse prior to the auction appear to win the the auction as well? Why don't they just pull the horse from the auction when the sale goes through?

I'm so very confused...

buzz chace recently bought a horse that was sold before it went thru the auction. so the seller listed, wasn't really the seller. in those situations, the horse is supposed to be pulled from the sale.
as for the green monkey, someone put up here (can't remember who, sorry) that the horse had already been purchased by coolmore, and then the auction and driving up the bid was bs, as the horse was already owned by the winning bidder.

Danzig · #62 10-31-2007, 04:59 PM

http://www.bloodhorse.com/articleind...e.asp?id=36006

that's the link to the buzz chace story i talked about...note who the immediate underbidder was on the filly....

GenuineRisk · #63 10-31-2007, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.bloodhorse.com/articleind...e.asp?id=36006

that's the link to the buzz chace story i talked about...note who the immediate underbidder was on the filly....

That's an interesting read; thanks for posting it!

Cannon Shell · #64 10-31-2007, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I don't see how making the stallion books smaller would cause prices to drop- that seems to go against the law of supply and demand- I would think the fewer mares, the higher the fee would go for a top stallion (though I can see your point that owners would keep mares running longer because they couldn't get a top stallion). I do think you're right that fewer permitted covers is a great idea, and better for the industry; I just don't see how it would encourage owners to keep top colts running.

It would not cause prices to drop but would limit the dollar amount a stallion would be able to produce which is where the value of a stallion exists. Currently there are horses that are breeding close to 200 mares. Cut that in half and you signifigntly lower the value of the stallion. Sure the top stallions prices may rise a bit but you still give incentive for the lesser horses like Lawyer Ron as a 3 year old to return and become stars. I still believe that the best horses may still retire and sit out a year with high values and not risk lowering them. The benchmark is three years worth of fees to cover the cost of the horse. Many stallions are capturing the cost by breeding to an excessive number of mares.

Cannon Shell · #65 10-31-2007, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

And yes, I agree they risk a stallion's "value" dropping after a bad year, but I think that's part of the problem- the stallions are overvalued to begin with- the insurance companies price the top ones with the idea that they'll all turn out to be AP Indy at stud. Which is ridiculous, but insurance companies are in the business of making lots of money while paying out very little, so you can't expect them to do different. The "value" is connected to breeding value, and I think we're focusing on how to keep them racing. And frankly, a lower breeding value means lower insurance rates.

Insurance companies dont put the value on the horse. The market does that. They may chose not to insure a horse past a certain level but that is just business.

Cannon Shell · #66 10-31-2007, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

In Funny Cide's case, we saw the natural progression of many athlete's careers- he naturally tailed off towards the end, though was still competitive at the right level. And I think that's okay, from a fan standpoint. He wasn't running Grade 1s, but I think here on DT there was a thread started every time he ran, regardless of the level of race. Which is cool; and indicates how people were attached to him.

GR, Funny Cide had a lot of fans for sure but he was also the poster child of why people retire horses while they are on top. Dual classic winner to 3rd tier NY bred stakes loser. Lots of demand for one, not so much for the other. If you owned a dual classic winner that you could get $25 million for would you risk almost all of it to run him another year fearing a Funny Cide scenario?

Riot · #67 10-31-2007, 08:32 PM

Three Chimneys announced it will contractually limit the book on all it's stallions to 110 mares in 2008.

For the northern hemisphere

Danzig · #68 10-31-2007, 08:58 PM

this fits perfectly in this thread...just read this in the 10/20 bloodhorse (which i got yesterday, thanks so much bloodhorse for the bc preview which i got days AFTER the event)--in the 'what's going on here' article by dan liebman:

'If you think those with interests in stallions don't place horses with various consignors and run up the prices to infalte stallion averages, you haven't been paying attention.'

also, meras, regarding chace being upset. did you read the link, and catch the name of the immediate underbidder? it was the new, but undisclosed, owner. guy had nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by helping run up the price on his OWN HORSE. but chace didn't know it was his horse, he thought it still belonged to someone else. did that guy find out chace was interested, and gamble that he could drive up the fee? at any rate, it worked...til chace found out who the owner was, and was able to lower the price.

right now it's only voluntary to disclose ownership. why? who does it benefit?

certainly not the buyer.

caveat emptor.

Danzig · #69 10-31-2007, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

Three Chimneys announced it will contractually limit the book on all it's stallions to 110 mares in 2008.

For the northern hemisphere

yippee.

i like hamdans view of things much more.

Cannon Shell · #70 10-31-2007, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

also, meras, regarding chace being upset. did you read the link, and catch the name of the immediate underbidder? it was the new, but undisclosed, owner. guy had nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by helping run up the price on his OWN HORSE. but chace didn't know it was his horse, he thought it still belonged to someone else. did that guy find out chace was interested, and gamble that he could drive up the fee? at any rate, it worked...til chace found out who the owner was, and was able to lower the price.

right now it's only voluntary to disclose ownership. why? who does it benefit?

certainly not the buyer.

caveat emptor.

There is more fiction involved with this story than Harry Potter.

ELA · #71 10-31-2007, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

GR, Funny Cide had a lot of fans for sure but he was also the poster child of why people retire horses while they are on top. Dual classic winner to 3rd tier NY bred stakes loser. Lots of demand for one, not so much for the other. If you owned a dual classic winner that you could get $25 million for would you risk almost all of it to run him another year fearing a Funny Cide scenario?

Chuck, it's like asking someone what they would do if they won the lottery, and asking them what they are going to do after they won the lottery.

Want to know? Check back with them in a year, two, three. The statistics would make your hair fall out (or mine considering I have not much more than you, LOL).

Eric

letswastemoney · #72 10-31-2007, 09:58 PM

If I owned Street Sense, I'd be happy with the money he makes me from just racing on the track.

Cannon Shell · #73 10-31-2007, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

If I owned Street Sense, I'd be happy with the money he makes me from just racing on the track.

Which is not that much lately...

Cannon Shell · #74 10-31-2007, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ELA

Chuck, it's like asking someone what they would do if they won the lottery, and asking them what they are going to do after they won the lottery.

Want to know? Check back with them in a year, two, three. The statistics would make your hair fall out (or mine considering I have not much more than you, LOL).

Eric

I know what I'm gonna do....

Danzig · #75 11-01-2007, 06:43 AM

every sport has rules to follow, from the owners thru the coaches and down to the players. why horse racing is different i don't know. why owners think that because they run horses, rather than owning a team, that they can do whatever they please, is beyond me. to not speak out imo is wrong. how else do you have change unless the problems are pointed out? so, some big shot owns horses--if he wants to hire a cheater as a trainer, we should all just shrug our shoulders? oh well...his right...is that how we're supposed to view it?

since some owners are not willing to hire a clean trainer, the sport must do what it takes to make sure that only those who are above board are in the sport. they need rules with real punishments, with limits set, and with lifetime bans when necessary. the sport must make sure the playing field remains level. the powers that be in racing are the ones who have to do this. after all, if a trainer cheats, he isn't just ensuring a win for himself--bettors are being ripped off, the very people who keep this sport going.
you see stories days and weeks after a race where a horse is taken down--intercontinental for example, with her lasix given too close to race time. purse is redistributed--but what about the bettors who lost money on a horse who suddenly got moved into a board finish??

GenuineRisk · #76 11-01-2007, 10:34 AM

Cannon, thanks for the explanation on how limiting a horse's number of covers would reduce the stallion's value- now I understand what you're saying (sometimes it takes me a second explanation to get it.

). Though again, I don't see it having any effect on staving off the retirements of top runners- as you said, it would motivate owners of 2nd-tier horses to keep their horses running longer, but I think 1st-tier runners would still be rushed off to breed, so again, no superstars.

And I do understand your point on Funny Cide, but again, the figures you're estimating are what his value would have been as a stallion prospect, had he been intact- not his value as a runner. So while I agree FC would have been retired as a 3-year-old had he been a stallion, because he would have been at his peak value, again, what I was hypothesizing was ways to keep the superstars racing, and I don't see any way around that than making them wait to start standing at stud. Some owners, to be sure, will pull them from the track to wait it out, but that's not any different to the fan than pulling them to start breeding right away, so for the fan it wouldn't be a detriment, and might, in some cases, keep a horse running.

And yeah, it'll never happen. (No sign of Clive and my unicorn yesterday, either.)

horseofcourse · #77 11-01-2007, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

GR, Funny Cide had a lot of fans for sure but he was also the poster child of why people retire horses while they are on top. Dual classic winner to 3rd tier NY bred stakes loser. Lots of demand for one, not so much for the other. If you owned a dual classic winner that you could get $25 million for would you risk almost all of it to run him another year fearing a Funny Cide scenario?

You are correct. I am of the opinion Funny Cide never races past 3 if he wasn't a gelding. He was still legit at age 4 usually on the board in grade 1s with an occasional win thrown in...but after that...not so much. So in all actuality, I think he would have maintained most of his value if retired after his 4 year old year...it was age 5-6-7 where his decline was obviously apparent. But yeah, you look at results...speed figures through the Belmont Stakes of their career there is virtually nothing separating, Funny Cide, Smarty Jones, Afleet Alex, Curlin, Street Sense, Hard Spun etc. So yeah, why run any of them...when as you said we have our poster boy of what happens...and through spring of their 3 yr old years...FC was as good as any of those mentioned above and if not as good...certainly in their ball park. They are all individuals so there are a few here or there that may continue to get better and become megastars, but I think the majority would track like FC and become nothing extraordinary and with the money out there...why chance it at all when the guarantee is right in front of you not running??

Danzig · #78 11-01-2007, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

There is more fiction involved with this story than Harry Potter.

really?

well, they say believe half of what you see, none of what you hear. maybe that fits in this case.

Riot · #79 11-01-2007, 07:08 PM

I have a horse to sell. Someone wants to buy it. I sell. The next day the horse sells for multiple times what I sold it for. Who made money?

Not me.
Not the person who paid for the horse the next day.

Cannon Shell · #80 11-01-2007, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

You are correct. I am of the opinion Funny Cide never races past 3 if he wasn't a gelding. He was still legit at age 4 usually on the board in grade 1s with an occasional win thrown in...but after that...not so much. So in all actuality, I think he would have maintained most of his value if retired after his 4 year old year...it was age 5-6-7 where his decline was obviously apparent. But yeah, you look at results...speed figures through the Belmont Stakes of their career there is virtually nothing separating, Funny Cide, Smarty Jones, Afleet Alex, Curlin, Street Sense, Hard Spun etc. So yeah, why run any of them...when as you said we have our poster boy of what happens...and through spring of their 3 yr old years...FC was as good as any of those mentioned above and if not as good...certainly in their ball park. They are all individuals so there are a few here or there that may continue to get better and become megastars, but I think the majority would track like FC and become nothing extraordinary and with the money out there...why chance it at all when the guarantee is right in front of you not running??

Though it is easy for us to throw numbers around the amounts of money being paid for stallion prospects is staggering. 25 to 50 million dollars is real money even to rich people. Dont forget that alot of these rich owners believe that the sport is who makes the most money like in their other businesses. I am not saying it is wrong or right but it is how they think.