G'day Punter!

In this Discussion

Who's Online

0 Members & 27 Non Members

Good for the Industry?

West Australian Racing

Comments

  • TiversTivers    7,528 posts
    Bang on HB.
    The biggest knock of WA Racing is quality. Remove Bobs horses and where does that leave that...?
    Higher quality means more interest, means more turnover, means bigger pot for all.

    Rex, therealkramer, Bucks likes this post.

  • curmudgeoncurmudgeon    1,834 posts
    Seems to me that the core issue here is that Westspeed has a clause which includes South North and East speed.
    The situation is compounded by the geographic isolation of WA and the Lords and Ladies that inhabit the decision making of the Sport of Kings certainly aren't going to release their throttlehold on the breeding golden goose via artificial insemination. As per usual the most obvious amelioration's are often those ignored by vested interests controlling both the tiller and till.

    RIO likes this post.

  • therealkramertherealkramer    7,913 posts
    I fell in love with Real Love the moment I saw her run at Ascot. I doubt you'd get to such a specimen(by Desert King) if not for Bob...just my two cents
  • RIORIO    14,344 posts
    Tivers said:

    Bang on HB.
    The biggest knock of WA Racing is quality. Remove Bobs horses and where does that leave that...?
    Higher quality means more interest, means more turnover, means bigger pot for all.



    i thought the biggest knock on the WA industry in the past few years has been attracting owners, field sizes and sustainability!?!!??!

    As stated somewhere else, i now realise i have been looking at the industry upside down and back to front these past few years, and am prepared to admit to that error.

    Quality of horses and money for winning owners and breeders is where we need to be, by the sounds of it....
  • NgawyniNgawyni    520 posts
    Tivers said:

    Bang on HB.
    The biggest knock of WA Racing is quality. Remove Bobs horses and where does that leave that...?
    Higher quality means more interest, means more turnover, means bigger pot for all.

    Not sure there's a lot of turnover in races where the favourite is $1.20. Bob's horses are more likely to stifle betting rather than encourage it. I don't know anyone who takes odds on.

    And as for the suggestion that punter's love his horses, good luck taking the shorts and trying to stay in front. Even with Willie riding at 26%, the ROI on his rides according to Racenet is -5%.

    thefalcon, RIO, Manchild, TheFunkster likes this post.

  • TheFunksterTheFunkster    3,840 posts
    edited June 2018
    So Bob drops dead tomorrow (hypothetically) and all his horses are sold off over east.
    So the $5m from the 100 races (wag) that Bob's horses have won @ $50k average, is now shared by 100 other owners @ $42.5k avge each, 20 trainers @ avge 25k each (as the quality of the stock in Williams & Durrant`s stables dminishes) and lets say Pike's winners halve, so $12.5k to the next 10 jockeys. Plus $100k in slings (that dont exist with Bob) shared amongst 50 jocks/stable hands at $2k each.
    So jocks may lash out on a new saddle & boots and trainers some new bridles, saddles, rugs, etc, boosting saddlery businesses.
    20 trainers may employ another staff member, creating 20 new jobs.
    100 owners will reinvest $40k each into the 'local' sales, pumping an 'extra' $4m back into the local sales, boosting the sales average up by 20% and clearance rates over 90%.
    Resulting in breeders improving there stock, fixing fences, constructing new stables (creating more indirect jobs), and employing more staff (more jobs), using more vets.
    Bob's high quality stock are replaced by reasonable quality stock, courtesy of the upgrades from local breeders due to there better returns.
    This better quality stock results in more e/s and o/s purchases attending our sales, thereby increasing funds into the local industry further.
    Fanciful? Maybe. Unrealistic, no. And i've probably just scrapped the surface of the indirect cost benefits to the industry.

    RIO, Flanders, thefalcon likes this post.

  • RIORIO    14,344 posts
    A nice theoretical summation Funky of what might happen
  • 2lifetimewinners2lifetimewinners    432 posts
    Based on that detailed analysis we better knock Bob off quick to save the industry.
    Tall poppy at its best.
  • TheDivaTheDiva    12,577 posts
    talking the industry and how "down and out" it is..
    Derby cancelled this weekend due to insufficient nominations. 
    The trend continues... 

    RIO likes this post.

  • FlandersFlanders    721 posts

    So Bob drops dead tomorrow (hypothetically) and all his horses are sold off over east.

    So the $5m from the 100 races (wag) that Bob's horses have won @ $50k average, is now shared by 100 other owners @ $42.5k avge each, 20 trainers @ avge 25k each (as the quality of the stock in Williams & Durrant`s stables dminishes) and lets say Pike's winners halve, so $12.5k to the next 10 jockeys. Plus $100k in slings (that dont exist with Bob) shared amongst 50 jocks/stable hands at $2k each.
    So jocks may lash out on a new saddle & boots and trainers some new bridles, saddles, rugs, etc, boosting saddlery businesses.
    20 trainers may employ another staff member, creating 20 new jobs.
    100 owners will reinvest $40k each into the 'local' sales, pumping an 'extra' $4m back into the local sales, boosting the sales average up by 20% and clearance rates over 90%.
    Resulting in breeders improving there stock, fixing fences, constructing new stables (creating more indirect jobs), and employing more staff (more jobs), using more vets.
    Bob's high quality stock are replaced by reasonable quality stock, courtesy of the upgrades from local breeders due to there better returns.
    This better quality stock results in more e/s and o/s purchases attending our sales, thereby increasing funds into the local industry further.
    Fanciful? Maybe. Unrealistic, no. And i've probably just scrapped the surface of the indirect cost benefits to the industry.


    This got me thinking- does anyone know if Bob has someone waiting in the wings for when he's done?
  • DamienWyerDamienWyer    7,329 posts
    I understand from a previous conversation where I asked the question directly, that his grand daughters have taken an active role in developing their racing  knowledge in addition to their love of equestrian riding, so a succession plan is well in the pipeline.
  • DamienWyerDamienWyer    7,329 posts
    TheDiva said:

    talking the industry and how "down and out" it is..

    Derby cancelled this weekend due to insufficient nominations. 
    The trend continues... 
    A factor that I had not taken into account about Racing in the far North, was just as I was thinking about maybe taking my camera for a weekend of Country Racing, maybe some portraits of local identities and some local landscape of the Aussie bush, the meeting on that following weekend was washed out by the far edge of a cyclone. That makes life difficult is you are a small Club.
  • paraleticparaletic    3,661 posts
    with no Broome this weekend I would have thought they would have got some numbers as broome - derby is only 200kms away. 
  • TiversTivers    7,528 posts
    Don't think you can really judge the state industry on whether there's numbers in Derby or not.
    Even Broome they'd get better nominations for tumbleweed racing atm.......... (Racing far from the only industry suffering with the downturn up there).
  • TheDivaTheDiva    12,577 posts
    edited June 2018
    correct me if I'm wrong, but they were not the only country club to have to cancel race meetings this year? Leinster or Roebourne or somewhere else? Trust me... it has everything to do with the state of the industry (and state of the economy in general).

    RIO likes this post.

  • TiversTivers    7,528 posts
    State of the economy, yes.
  • TheDivaTheDiva    12,577 posts
    the most important stat would be punting turnover on WA races. I'd be interested to know where those figures are at the last 18 months. Regardless of what the WATAB top knobs tell you.... its those punting dollars that fund the industry (not the WATAB).
  • savethegamesavethegame    1,902 posts
    Norseman  first attempted was cancelled ....    Leonora's  Monday june longweek end meeting..was cancelled....After several gypsy type trainers had set camp up at leinster   who race there the week   prior,, and then take the two Leonora meets in..as. well as part of a circuit .to make it worthwhile..  Evidently          had enough nominations for 4 races but canned it without extending noms for the Monday meeting.one trainer had travelled collie to leinster 2,200km roundtrip to see. theres and owners earning capacity be removed by 33% after they had committed...…..grassroots racing in big trouble..

    RIO likes this post.

  • DamienWyerDamienWyer    7,329 posts
    Just another wrinkle for the discussion, there were 38 yearlings sold in February to either International or Interstate Trainers at our Premier Sale, which followed 41 at the 2017 Sale. Now some of those may remain here but the majority will go to other domains. Assuming that those people know what they are doing for the most part, those yearlings that showed enough class to attract attention were drained from our racing community further lowering the next two and three year old seasons. Of course it is not the end of our juvenile ranks, but it can't help but weaken future races through a lack of quality competition for well bred young horses that remained here or were not offered for sale.

    Competition drives turnover in my opinion, as I don't think people are overly interested in betting in one sided or odds on races with no value. 
  • TucoolTucool    126 posts

    I understand from a previous conversation where I asked the question directly, that his grand daughters have taken an active role in developing their racing  knowledge in addition to their love of equestrian riding, so a succession plan is well in the pipeline.

    Bullsh*t

    RIO likes this post.

  • DamienWyerDamienWyer    7,329 posts
    Tucool said:

    I understand from a previous conversation where I asked the question directly, that his grand daughters have taken an active role in developing their racing  knowledge in addition to their love of equestrian riding, so a succession plan is well in the pipeline.

    Bullsh*t
    Which part ?
  • VoodooVoodoo    908 posts
    The average ongoing cost to maintain the 10% share is $100 per week. This covers general expenses such as spelling, pre-training, training, general vetting, management fee, general race nominations, etc.

    Just read this on a horse for sale.....not cheap to own a horse...

    cheers

    jum likes this post.

  • TheFunksterTheFunkster    3,840 posts
    Voodoo said:

    The average ongoing cost to maintain the 10% share is $100 per week. This covers general expenses such as spelling, pre-training, training, general vetting, management fee, general race nominations, etc.

    Just read this on a horse for sale.....not cheap to own a horse...

    cheers
    $100 a week average! Whoever pays that is getting shafted. That`s $52k per year!
    Would avge about $60, allowing for reduced costs when spelling

    RIO likes this post.

  • DamienWyerDamienWyer    7,329 posts
    Its probably a number based on what Trainers in the Eastern States both charge and their Associations feel they should be getting on a monthly basis. $3,000 a month is modest in Perth for an Open Class Trainer these days. That's not far off $100 per month based on 10% when Veterinary costs are added as an average.
  • buffybuffy    271 posts
    Funkster. Would be a $100 per week average over 12 months for 10% of a horse. And thats $5200 per year not $52k.
  • thefalconthefalcon    17,051 posts
    funk is baseing it on 100% ownership, buffy.
    I have a 10% share with a prominent ascot trainer and its nowhere near $5,200 a year for my 10%.
    i'd be out like a shot if it was....

    jum likes this post.

  • spinkingspinking    2,840 posts
    Cant see that as being the case either Falc. Would cost a lot more than $5200 a year to own one by yourself If I have read it correctly
  • ElitistElitist    355 posts

    its about half as suggested, say 25-30K a year for full ownership of a racehorse. Thank god for syndication.

    Chelsea likes this post.

  • TiversTivers    7,528 posts
    I always use $200 per month (for 10%) as a guide (Perth).
    $100 a week would be correct for Melbourne.

    jum likes this post.

  • buffybuffy    271 posts
    Just gone back for the last 12 months of accounts of a horse i have with a leading Ascot trainer. All in training agistment  etc etc etc for my 10% share was $3440. Probably time i thought about horses myself. Tivers you are saying you are getting horses trained for $2000 per month all in. 10% share is $200 per month?? Seems very cheap.
Sign In or Register to comment.