PDA

View Full Version : Foal crop shortage


jdhanover
05-24-2013, 12:13 AM
A comment in another thread by Mountainman about the foal shortage prompted me to look up the stats

http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=2

Not a pretty picture. Fields (already too small) will shrink further I suspect, though a few tracks will go under lowering the number of races. As the 5+ year olds retire there aren't enough young horses coming up. This, in and of itself, may lead to fewer races/race days.

Charli125
05-24-2013, 12:41 PM
A comment in another thread by Mountainman about the foal shortage prompted me to look up the stats

http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=2

Not a pretty picture. Fields (already too small) will shrink further I suspect, though a few tracks will go under lowering the number of races. As the 5+ year olds retire there aren't enough young horses coming up. This, in and of itself, may lead to fewer races/race days.

I conclude from those numbers that we need fewer tracks running fewer races. For a while we had way too many races and thus way too many horses. This is simply a market attempting to correct itself.

Al Gobbi
05-25-2013, 02:59 AM
Presque Isle only managed to get four runners in the box for a $14k maiden claimer next Tuesday.

Capper Al
05-25-2013, 07:13 AM
The casinos killed racing in Michigan. I'd guess the farms were lost with the tracks. Michigan should have done something to protect all the jobs lost in the racing business. The casinos want simulcast rights and the tracks want to add slots that the casinos don't want to give up the monopoly on.

Shemp Howard
05-25-2013, 08:05 AM
The attendence Thursday night at PI was 233; on track handle less than the cash I keep around the house. Total handle $50K a race. Purses were over 30% of the handle.

Why should the taxpayers continue to subsidize a business/sport/wagering model the public clearly has no appetite for?

Do we really need $3.00 winners in 4 horse fields every other race ??

Robert Goren
05-25-2013, 08:24 AM
I wish the tracks spent as much time worrying about the bettor shortage as they did the horse shortage. I think if they'd solve the bettor shortage, the shortage would take care of itself. Even a blind man can see that racino business model has been as disaster for the horse racing industry, yet they keep building more of them.

Capper Al
05-25-2013, 09:59 AM
Bettor shortage is the overall problem. Michigan tracks didn't do a good job here also. I believe Michigan has enough interest in horse racing. But, in our case, the casinos put it to our dysfunctional racing industry and got away with it.

RXB
05-25-2013, 12:07 PM
I wish the tracks spent as much time worrying about the bettor shortage as they did the horse shortage. I think if they'd solve the bettor shortage, the shortage would take care of itself. Even a blind man can see that racino business model has been as disaster for the horse racing industry, yet they keep building more of them.

It's not just about bettor shortage, it's also about owner shortage. There's not much incentive to own race horses. Lose money on increasingly brittle animals that only average six starts per year, racing in front of mostly empty grandstands. What's the hook in that?

Shemp Howard
05-25-2013, 04:16 PM
Things have gotten so bad at Penn National the racing secretary had to beg the Renpher Stable to enter 5 of its losers in order to fill its races next Wednesday.

When a track has to beg a losing stable that is 3-70 this year to enter you know things have hit rock bottom.

Would anyone,except the loser stables that make ends meet off the 8% they get paid for running 4th, seriously miss Penn National if it closed up shop tomorrow????

DeltaLover
05-25-2013, 05:46 PM
In my opinion the foal shortage was not only expected but should also have been desired by any horse bettor as a step towards the right direction.

Hopefully this shortage will eventually force most of the small race tracks to go out of business, strengthening the larger ones, something that will create better quality and of course much larger betting pools.

Less racing not only means larger pools. it also makes regulation and monitoring much easier due to the smaller sample size and to the increased visibility of each event.

As a bettor I have no sympathy for the 'pros' who are going to need to find another job since this will be the result of their selfish and narrow minded approach that lasted many years.

VeryOldMan
05-25-2013, 05:55 PM
This is simply a market attempting to correct itself.

This - and also consider how distorted the market is because of the racino/slots, etc. subsidies. This market needs to find its own level. The economics of this sport are hopelessly upside-down for most breeders and owners.

And that holds aside us bettors who are the sheep to be sheared.

Al Gobbi
05-26-2013, 03:46 PM
There are already been a few tracks (Bay Meadows, Windsor and soon Hollywood) that have closed down. I would guess that if Suffolk is not chosen as the Boston area casino site it will also be finished too.

The sooner the states that have casinos seriously reduce the racing payments or eliminate them completely those tracks will follow suit.

forced89
05-26-2013, 08:56 PM
Declining foal crops explain increasing prices at the sales. Just look at the increase in the recent Timonium 2 YO in Training Sale. Prices way up and buybacks way down.

duncan04
05-26-2013, 11:55 PM
Yeah closing some of the smaller tracks and taking live racing from people. That will help the sport. :bang:

jdhanover
05-27-2013, 12:47 AM
If I am not mistaken the foal shortage is in large part due to Reproductive Mare Syndrome that hit a few years ago...plus the economy.

I suspect this will push the industry towards consolidation. May be a good thing in the long run though I like the days with lots of tracks/races (if the fields are at least reasonable)

PaceAdvantage
05-27-2013, 03:42 AM
Things have gotten so bad at Penn National the racing secretary had to beg the Renpher Stable to enter 5 of its losers in order to fill its races next Wednesday.

When a track has to beg a losing stable that is 3-70 this year to enter you know things have hit rock bottom.

Would anyone,except the loser stables that make ends meet off the 8% they get paid for running 4th, seriously miss Penn National if it closed up shop tomorrow????Oh shit...you worked another Renpher dig into a post...what a shocker... :lol:

rastajenk
05-27-2013, 06:58 AM
Yeah closing some of the smaller tracks and taking live racing from people. That will help the sport. :bang:It's always amazing to me that so many participants on this board continue to see "owners" and "bettors" as two distinct, separate categories pitted against one another, when they are really so much the same. When you lose the smaller venues that most "owners" attend (and take friends with), those people won't necessarily gravitate towards remaining tracks. They'll be gone for good, and their contributions to the pool will not be made up by immigrants from poker rooms, slots parlors, and lottery terminals. It's an incredibly short-sighted approach to assume that owners are somehow fundamentally different from you the bettor. Fewer owners means fewer bettors; can anyone explain how that's a good thing?

CincyHorseplayer
05-27-2013, 08:35 AM
It's always amazing to me that so many participants on this board continue to see "owners" and "bettors" as two distinct, separate categories pitted against one another, when they are really so much the same. When you lose the smaller venues that most "owners" attend (and take friends with), those people won't necessarily gravitate towards remaining tracks. They'll be gone for good, and their contributions to the pool will not be made up by immigrants from poker rooms, slots parlors, and lottery terminals. It's an incredibly short-sighted approach to assume that owners are somehow fundamentally different from you the bettor. Fewer owners means fewer bettors; can anyone explain how that's a good thing?

I agree.I wish they would despise me less though!If we are equals they could not be so dismissive when you show interest.There are some good guys owner/trainer though,like Wayne Mogge and Charlie Lawson.I always end up watching a lot of races with Mogge because we hang out in the same part of the grandstand.Charlie will talk to me anywhere.That guy is awesome and personable.Kris Nemann is pretty candid,she's a fun gal!The rest could use some work.

burnsy
05-27-2013, 09:23 AM
Its economics in a free market. Owners and bettors are not "pitted" against each other...they walk hand in hand..where do people get that idea??? If there are less bettors and less public interest, there will be less owners.....when people start buying less horses or start paying less for horses....there will be less horses. Why should a breeder, bred horses no one wants or horses they will eat the loss on?

The market is shrinking and some tracks will eventually close IMO. Is a good thing? of course not...is it a needed fact? Most likely. If there are not enough horses to go around and 200 people are showing up. What the hell are you going to do? You have to shrink, downsize and re-organize......that simple. Horse racing needs to move to one cooperative circuit....right now its a feeding frenzy and anyone that suggests this ....is run out of town. People want to hold what they have and look at the situation, it ain't getting any better. Its not that the casinos are subsidizing racing, they are in direct competition with horse racing and so are the legal numbers. Horse racing has not been the only game you can bet on for DECADES but they never adjust and things just are out of hand. The tracks are getting their teeth kicked in by other means of gaming, been that way for YEARS! You can either close some tracks and consolidate or keep running 4 horse races that no one gives a sh!t about! Thats the reality, everytime a track closes i read people bitching about it, this sucks, but its probably needed. Less tracks with less racing days will be a reality with things going this way and the good horses only run when they want anyway, which isn't much these days for many of them. Instead of crying about the shrinking market, its a reality, that simple. Less interest=less owners= less horses=short fields=low handle=no one gives a sh!t=less bettors=eventually less tracks=the reality racing must face soon! Would you rather have 12 tracks running every 4 minutes with 5 horse fields or 6 tracks running every 10 minutes with full fields? So simple it hurts, of course it hurts closing....but if no one is buying (horses) and no one is playing or attending(handle is NOT EVERYTHING, you need public perception, for juice)...there is no choice. People sound like they should keep tracks open at any cost, its like Alice in Wonderland...if no ones going or playing and the fields are short....whats the point? This is why i worry about racing, they won't make the tough choices until circumstances make them for them and by then, the WHOLE thing could be in REAL trouble. If there were a TRUE shortage of horses, the price for horses would be going up and they would breed more....does anyone in their right mind think that this is the situation?

Robert Goren
05-27-2013, 09:30 AM
It's always amazing to me that so many participants on this board continue to see "owners" and "bettors" as two distinct, separate categories pitted against one another, when they are really so much the same. When you lose the smaller venues that most "owners" attend (and take friends with), those people won't necessarily gravitate towards remaining tracks. They'll be gone for good, and their contributions to the pool will not be made up by immigrants from poker rooms, slots parlors, and lottery terminals. It's an incredibly short-sighted approach to assume that owners are somehow fundamentally different from you the bettor. Fewer owners means fewer bettors; can anyone explain how that's a good thing?When the owner join the "reduce the takeout" movement, I'll believe they are on the side of bettors like me. If the owners sent all that much money into the pools, they be there demanding lower take out rates too. Where were the owners in places like Texas and Illinois when they outlawed ADWs? Where are the owners in the fight to rid the game of drugs? Even mention of getting rid of Lasix sends them into a tizzy. I am not buying for one second that owners are on the side of the bettors until I see them start fighting for things that the bettors are need desperately. All I ever see from the owners and other horsemen is their desire to turn every race track into a racino so they can have even less need for the horse race bettor.

DeltaLover
05-27-2013, 10:01 AM
This game was created by the very rich who could afford it.

Horse racing is not supposed to create profits for the owner, he should be prepared to pay for it and not view it as a money making proposition.
The involvement of upper middle class people with horse ownership is responsible to a great degree for the degeneration of the sport for obvious reasons.

In my opinion thoroughbreds should be very expensive to buy and maintain resulting to very competitive environment where the bettor should have the confidence that the insiders are truth sportsmen with no intention for fraud.

VastinMT
05-27-2013, 10:51 AM
This game was created by the very rich who could afford it.

Yup. A racehorse is a status good, like a mansion or a trophy wife in a Derby hat. It tells everyone that its owner can do things the hoi paloi cannot.

This message never goes out of style, but racehorses no longer communicate it so well, so racing suffers from the top, too.

burnsy
05-28-2013, 05:54 PM
This game was created by the very rich who could afford it.

Horse racing is not supposed to create profits for the owner, he should be prepared to pay for it and not view it as a money making proposition.
The involvement of upper middle class people with horse ownership is responsible to a great degree for the degeneration of the sport for obvious reasons.

In my opinion thoroughbreds should be very expensive to buy and maintain resulting to very competitive environment where the bettor should have the confidence that the insiders are truth sportsmen with no intention for fraud.

Theres some hidden truth to this. The problem is if they didn't open up the ownership to syndicates and partnerships......there would be even LESS owners now. The rich don't do this for money, they do it in the spirit of competing with other rich people, the thrill for them and their family and the public attention. Owning a big time horse used to be as big as owning a professional sports team. They don't want to spend millions to have the results printed on the last page of the sports section.......if they are printed at all. They don't bring their families to the track to see seagulls and geese....they want fans (there) admiring their top horses. People are on here dissing owners, how can you blame them for pulling back? Would you want one of your best horses running in front of three drunks and a pretzel vendor? If rich people don't see the "buzz", the crowd and the hoopla....they are not so fast to buy, thats why they are in, for most, the money is not important, they have more than they can spend. Attendance, betting and ownership go hand in hand. People are not going to waste their time, when their time is worth more (to them) than their money.

RXB
05-28-2013, 06:32 PM
Theres some hidden truth to this. The problem is if they didn't open up the ownership to syndicates and partnerships......there would be even LESS owners now. The rich don't do this for money, they do it in the spirit of competing with other rich people, the thrill for them and their family and the public attention. Owning a big time horse used to be as big as owning a professional sports team. They don't want to spend millions to have the results printed on the last page of the sports section.......if they are printed at all. They don't bring their families to the track to see seagulls and geese....they want fans (there) admiring their top horses. People are on here dissing owners, how can you blame them for pulling back? Would you want one of your best horses running in front of three drunks and a pretzel vendor? If rich people don't see the "buzz", the crowd and the hoopla....they are not so fast to buy, thats why they are in, for most, the money is not important, they have more than they can spend. Attendance, betting and ownership go hand in hand. People are not going to waste their time, when their time is worth more (to them) than their money.

Some good points. :ThmbUp:

DeltaLover
05-28-2013, 07:25 PM
Theres some hidden truth to this. The problem is if they didn't open up the ownership to syndicates and partnerships......there would be even LESS owners now. The rich don't do this for money, they do it in the spirit of competing with other rich people, the thrill for them and their family and the public attention. Owning a big time horse used to be as big as owning a professional sports team. They don't want to spend millions to have the results printed on the last page of the sports section.......if they are printed at all. They don't bring their families to the track to see seagulls and geese....they want fans (there) admiring their top horses. People are on here dissing owners, how can you blame them for pulling back? Would you want one of your best horses running in front of three drunks and a pretzel vendor? If rich people don't see the "buzz", the crowd and the hoopla....they are not so fast to buy, thats why they are in, for most, the money is not important, they have more than they can spend. Attendance, betting and ownership go hand in hand. People are not going to waste their time, when their time is worth more (to them) than their money.

Unfortunatelly what you say here makes perfect sense and hardly can anyone disagree with your points. I still think that for racing to have any future this situation needs to be reversed.

Charli125
05-28-2013, 07:27 PM
When the owner join the "reduce the takeout" movement, I'll believe they are on the side of bettors like me.

Just because many don't think we're on the same side doesn't make it so. The fact is that we need each-other, and we both want large pools at optimal takeout. Some of us(primarily owners), just don't understand what optimal takeout is.

forced89
05-30-2013, 09:50 PM
Things have gotten so bad at Penn National the racing secretary had to beg the Renpher Stable to enter 5 of its losers in order to fill its races next Wednesday.

Just for the Record. Out of those 5 "losers" Renpher had 3 firsts and a second.

TravisVOX
05-30-2013, 10:12 PM
The challenges facing racing go well beyond a few pages on an internet message board.... just like they go well beyond "takeout" or "customer service." That said, the foal crop is a serious issue... sort of like the giant gorilla in the room no one wants to talk about.