G'day Punter!

Sign In Register

In this Discussion

Who's Online

0 Members & 48 Non Members

Great News for WA Racing

West Australian Racing

Comments

  • TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
    Put it this way....take away the stakes increases and take away the Belmont redevelopment.

    Would that make us happier? 
    :-/

    Carlosa likes this post.

    +1 -1
  • TiversTivers    7,720 posts
    Damo would be

    :)

    Carlosa likes this post.

    +1 -1
  • Thoroly_BreadThoroly_Bread    2,348 posts
    RIO said:

    Thoroly_Bread said:

    I think it is a damned if you do damned if you don't situation, cant keep everyone happy but the bottom line is any stakes increase is better then none this will help raise the average price at sales and helping the breeders that bar for the big studs are doing it tough and also good for owners, trainers, and jocks.


    i think no matter what the outcome was in regard to this everyone would have found something to cry about. 



    Agree totally TB..it is good for lots of people. And i reckon the majority of the industry will be happy with this...And RWWA, with such limited funds have increased all country stakesmoney and targetted what the industry told them they wanted targetted.

    The fact it doesn't suit everyone, and appears to have a bias towards certain parts of our industry is just the way it is....

    That's right RIO it is somewhat bias towards breeding it has to be if we don't breed horses we have nothing to race but whether it be breed to race or breed to sell at the sales i think it has it advantages for both groups breeding to race with the higher stakes money will encourage purchase of better mare and going to a better stallion witch will improve our stock and for the breeders that breed for the sales its the same deal with and average of $40,107.00 across our 2 day yearling sale is not good enough when it cost's the best part of $18,000.00 to get a yearling from the the stud after covering to the sales that is not including the service fee its a very fine line between making a profit and taking one home to race.

    i cant see any disadvantages of it other then pushing young horses to early but good horsemen will not do that as they know that it can destroy a horses career before it even begins....owners on the other hand can be impatient but in the end i think most owners will take the advise of the trainer.
    +1 -1
  • wedgewedge    269 posts
    The Diva said:

    Put it this way....take away the stakes increases and take away the Belmont redevelopment.


    Would that make us happier? 
    :-/
    thought someone would pop this statement up....didnt think it would take this long....
    the players invested in the industry should be consulted before any distributions are set.
    is it not fair for us payers to ask the question?

    +1 -1
  • RIORIO    14,902 posts

    My wn opinion is that it is once again confirming to anyone that buys a horse that if you haven't got a return by the time it turns 3...get rid of it..

    I know if i am standing in the winners spot in the mounting yard on a Saturday, when my 6yr old gelding wins $25k, that the money side of things are very low on the level of importance. But i also know that about 7 days later when i get my payment of $21,590, i will ask the question as to why did the 2yr old in it's second race after a 8 month preparation get $32,640??? Especially when i think of all the ecxtra cost i've had and then look at the betting turn over on the races and realise that the punters put 100k on its race and 150k on my race...

    That is when this annomaly will really hurt....maybe next year they will support the peole that keep horses running around rather than people who breed horses to run around..

    +1 -1
  • TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
    didnt say it was a fair distribution Wedge and I believe there should have been more consultation too.....but sometimes you cant win every battle. 
    Better to have these things than not in my opinion.
    Personally, I would rather the spread be even, but Im happy that stakes have gone up and Im happy to receive a nice new facility when it happens. 
    I will certainly be happy if I can win with a Westpeed Extra 2yo or 3yo in the next few seasons! 

    wedge, RIO likes this post.

    +1 -1
  • TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
    wedge said:

    The Diva said:

    Put it this way....take away the stakes increases and take away the Belmont redevelopment.


    Would that make us happier? 
    :-/
    thought someone would pop this statement up....didnt think it would take this long....
    the players invested in the industry should be consulted before any distributions are set.
    is it not fair for us payers to ask the question?

    cracking good avatar by the way!

    wedge likes this post.

    +1 -1
  • ChelseaChelsea    1,369 posts
    edited May 2013
    It's a fine line between pleasure and pain ask any breeder or racehorse owner.

    I have experienced all of the above.
    +1 -1
  • joneseejonesee    715 posts
    Late to the thread but good to read a range of views.Very very hard to understand the logic of a disproportionate increase to 2 year old stakemoney. Betting funds the industry and 2 year old small fields just generate disprortionately LOW turnover. How could they possibly justify the unequal increase? Seems akin to owning a company and giving all workers a 5 percent wage rise - and then giving the laziest group another 5 per cent on top!

    +1 -1
  • senseisensei    100 posts
    Tivs,

    Out of interest which are the stables that are 'floating 200k and 300k horses' as compared to your 20 and 30k ones?
    +1 -1
  • TheFunksterTheFunkster    3,840 posts
    Anyone here Chris Waller's comments after race 7 today wrt Racing NSW consideration to increasing prizemoney?
    Basically he said they need to reduce the cost to all owners, not just the winners of Sat races....
    Hello RWWA? Is anyone home???

    RIO likes this post.

    +1 -1
  • TheFunksterTheFunkster    3,840 posts
    What a great idea, pay starters subsidies to all runners instead of increased prize money. Surely that is the best way of increasing field sizes and therefore betting turnover?
    +1 -1
  • joneseejonesee    715 posts
    Agree it does seem a terrific idea - logical and sensible and would lead directly to increased turnover.
    +1 -1
  • bookieloverbookielover    2,709 posts
    Starters subsidies have been paid in Melbourne for years.
    +1 -1
  • wedgewedge    269 posts
    no no no not a good idea, that would mean that everyone benefits from the allocated distribution  [-X [-(

    RIO likes this post.

    +1 -1
  • raconteurraconteur    610 posts
    edited June 2013

    The Plus and Minus matrix of stakes increases and 'decreases' has been omnipresent for decades.

    It seems the distrubution is simply at the whim of those charged with its allocation.  This presents problems if there are or there might be, any bias or procivity to 'distribute ' to races which some of those charged with the allocation decision might be 'involved' with.

    RWWA and to  some degree PR need to look at some of the International models of stakes allocation/ incentives/subsidies/sponsorships/ % distributions and strategies with which these other bodies utilise stakes increases to better their product .

    Simplistically allocating 1% to sixth place by taking it from the winning % is stupid accountancy - transparent  and achieves absolutely Zero

    It needs innovation (albeit  copying some others)  because a simplistic allocation will in the  short term , issue some relief but in the long term will do little to sustain the Industry - given that inflation will catch up quicker than the % allocation. 

    +1 -1
  • goosegoose    1,638 posts
    Can individual clubs pay starters subsidy with their prizemoney allocation?
    +1 -1
Sign In or Register to comment.