Appearance Fees

I do not like the philosophy behind an "appearance fee" for a horse. But I am wondering how wide spread is this? If I remember correctly, Momouth gave Baffert $50k to bring Point Given to the Haskell ( I could be wrong). I

Originally Posted by eurobounce

I do not like the philosophy behind an "appearance fee" for a horse. But I am wondering how wide spread is this? If I remember correctly, Momouth gave Baffert $50k to bring Point Given to the Haskell ( I could be wrong). I

why not? Its just smart business. Monmouth paid FC's owners an appearnace fee to go to the Haskell in 2003 as well.
Whose hurt by it?
For a lousy 50 grand you gurantee that many more people will show up at your place of business and pay for parking, admission, programs, food and they will wager.
I guess I don't understand how that could be a bad thing.

[JJP]

Oracle-

Fargo is a classic. Gotta love that Tru-Coat

Originally Posted by JJP

Oracle-

Fargo is a classic. Gotta love that Tru-Coat

Its very funny.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

the arlington citation challange ..a race soly for the cigar show...as scavs would say ..so bootleg..lol..

It is like the horse/trainer/owner is a whore. They are saying, "hey give us money and we will show up." So Monmouth offers $50k, someone else offers more--so you go to the highest bidder--that is like a whore. I dont think that many people showed up to Monmouth to see Funny Cide that normally wouldnt have been there. I think it is a bad practice.

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

the arlington citation challange ..a race soly for the cigar show...as scavs would say ..so bootleg..lol..

Hooves and how much was the handle that day? How many hot dogs and beers did they sell and how many programs,etc? If they don't put up the purse money for that race they never see a quarter of it.
I don't get a lot of horse fans. They yell and clamor for change and innovation, and when a track actually does something new and original they complain.
For B level tracks to get big players is a big deal. It increases on track attendance and also simulcast interest in it. But the big players like to stick to the A level tracks. In order to attract them you have to be innovative. I respect any track exec who steps up to the plate and gives things a crack.

Originally Posted by eurobounce

It is like the horse/trainer/owner is a whore. They are saying, "hey give us money and we will show up." So Monmouth offers $50k, someone else offers more--so you go to the highest bidder--that is like a whore. I dont think that many people showed up to Monmouth to see Funny Cide that normally wouldnt have been there. I think it is a bad practice.

Basically you begrudge hard working guys a chance to make a buck. Nonsense is what that is. Its called capitalism.

Originally Posted by oracle80

Hooves and how much was the handle that day? How many hot dogs and beers did they sell and how many programs,etc? If they don't put up the purse money for that race they never see a quarter of it.
I don't get a lot of horse fans. They yell and clamor for change and innovation, and when a track actually does something new and original they complain.
For B level tracks to get big players is a big deal. It increases on track attendance and also simulcast interest in it. But the big players like to stick to the A level tracks. In order to attract them you have to be innovative. I respect any track exec who steps up to the plate and gives things a crack.

I am all for innovation and change--but for the better. Paying appearance fees is not a good way of doing business IMO. There are only two A tracks in the nation--Keeneland and Saratoga with Toga being the best. Then you have a bunch of B+, B and B- tracks. How is paying a horse to come to your track benefit the other horses in the race. Say you own Sun King and you are entered in the Haskell. It appears (on paper) that you win the race easily but then Monmouth goes out and offers Melnyk and Pletcher $50k to run Flower Alley. Now you are running for 2nd, maybe even 3rd now that Flower Alley is in the race. I think it is a slap in the face of the other owners and trainers that committed to your race.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

its not that ..it was nice to see cigar but he faced no one and even jerry couldnt make it look good....as for apperace fees i think they are great..why not they need to cover transport and such.. im sure it cost baffert that much to get him and his crew the horse ect to a track he doesnt normally go too....hedging his bets..its just good bns,,

And I know the Haskell is for 3 year olds--I was just making an example.

Originally Posted by oracle80

Basically you begrudge hard working guys a chance to make a buck. Nonsense is what that is. Its called capitalism.

Capitalism--lol. It is called bribery.

[blackthroatedwind]

The appearance fee problem is in giving money to the trainer, and of course that's where Baffert go in trouble, in that it should obviously be paid to the owner.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

The appearance fee problem is in giving money to the trainer, and of course that's where Baffert go in trouble, in that it should obviously be paid to the owner.

I agree with that 100%. If you are going to pay a fee it should go to the owner.

[blackthroatedwind]

It's not dissimilar to my feelings about jockey's and advertising. If the jockey wants to, at least, split the money with the owner it's fine, but how the owner could be cut out is beyond me.

I have no problem with people profiting legitimately but it's all about fairness.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

You know, they might get better horses going to Chicago if they weren't constantly clownin' around there.They act like it is Bingo night at the local Polish-Catholic Church Cafeteria.How do they expect people to take that circuit seriously?

"HOME OF THE MILLION"



LOL..At some point,they need to get beyond that one race a year.There must be more to offer than that one race a year.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

It's not dissimilar to my feelings about jockey's and advertising. If the jockey wants to, at least, split the money with the owner it's fine, but how the owner could be cut out is beyond me.

I have no problem with people profiting legitimately but it's all about fairness.

Yeah no kidding. If you are going to pay $50k for Prado to wear advertising on his pants while he is riding your horse then you should get a cut of the money. I agree 100% again.

Originally Posted by eurobounce

I agree with that 100%. If you are going to pay a fee it should go to the owner.

Owners don't care. If your horse is so good that the trainer can get an appearance fee, the owner is more than happy to let the trainer keep it. Only great horses get trainers appearance fees. The purse usually is big enough.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Hoisttheflag

Owners don't care. If your horse is so good that the trainer can get an appearance fee, the owner is more than happy to let the trainer keep it. Only great horses get trainers appearance fees. The purse usually is big enough.

And you are basing this on.....what?


My guess is that owners, the ones who pay for everything AND give 10% to the trainer AND jockey when they win, might be more than interested in appearance fees should they be given.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

And you are basing this on.....what?


My guess is that owners, the ones who pay for everything AND give 10% to the trainer AND jockey when they win, might be more than interested in appearance fees should they be given.

This scenario of appearance fees is so rare and the instances where it happened the owners were billionaires. I am sure they were saying good for Baffert, as long as the horse wins. This isn't golf, it is horse racing. Appearance fees are very rare in horse racing. A trainer isn't going to get an appearance fee unless the horse is a superstar. People don't come out to see horses unless they are Smarty Jones types, and those types earn the owners plenty. Most owners probably prefer to let the trainers take appearance fees than give out seasons.