Trainer financial contribution to surface change

[Show Me the Wire]

As stated in another thread, realizing the Santa Anita's problematic surface is a result of an unfunded government mandate and not ownnership, should the trainers donate a percentage of their purse winnings to a replacement slush fund, in lieu of raising take out?

[Charlie D]

If horsemen want Dirt now, rather than later by waiting for Franks "free enterprise" , then they probably have to get thier wallets out.

[Hanover1]

Were we just passing time when we created this poll? :lol:
Lets here from those that voted yes, and why.........Did we not debate, yet overall agree, that trainers, for the most part, excepting the top tier, struggle? What happened to the folks that feel we should only get paid in the afternoon, and not for our labors in the morningtime? Seems we want a select few to pay for the track, if my summation of previous threads is accurate.....
Whats wrong with the folks that paid for the last one? They find monies to bid on other tracks, fund breeding ops and so forth. Bankruptcy at its highest level does not negate cashflow. Come on folks..........

[Stillriledup]

I think bettors should be able to optionally contribute. I'd toss in a few hundred bucks if everyone else will do the same. Lets get this show on the road.

[Hanover1]

Imo bettors already pay enough via takeout....(Easy Andy....)

[BluegrassProf]

A brief hypothetical...

----------

I'm a mid-level trainer based on Santa Anita. As with many of my colleagues, I dislike the synthetic surface, and have been awaiting the decision to return to dirt from synthetic (having disapproved of the original mandate, a decision over which I was given little choice).

I was relieved to hear that the home surface was switching back, as I was concerned that races were becoming increasingly irrelevant, and that many trainers - myself included - were fed up, and potentially taking flight from Santa Anita to all points dirt-laced.

Now, in a surprising move, SA has proposed two relatively unpleasant options:

a.) We either stay with the synthetics, and potentially see business as usual continue to deteriorate, potentially costing money to all parties in the long term but saving on initial installation costs for track management, or...

b.) We pay money out-of-pocket to switch back to dirt - the surface most-supported by horsemen - a necessity after a state mandate, demanded of me despite my mid-tier-trainer status and the level of income that accompanies it.

My options now include the following:

a.) Stay at SA and lose either money or relevance (in either the trainer-funded switch to dirt or potential losses generated by sticking w/ a proride surface of which I disapprove), or...

b.) Appreciate the issue of cost, but unwilling to lose additional profit, take my operation elsewhere (someplace relevant and without additional fiscal demand for trainers), which I had been considering before the announcement.

In this scenario, which would I likely find more reasonable: staying and losing money essentially as a result of mandates (in the form of either out-of-pocket monies or otherwise), or going elsewhere and keeping my money (with the added benefit of a dirt surface)?

Is the relative visibility of SA worth the cost, and what will happen to that visibility when the status quo continues? The Breeder's Cup is leaving, and I'm not sure what else - if much - I've got left around here...

----------

In an ideal scenario, every trainer at SA would line up and say, "You jokers have an hour...either drop the proride or we're walking."

If horsemen have a problem with it, they need to man up - they need to demand of the venue the changes it requires to stay alive, lest they pack up and take their operations with them.

Horsemen can do just fine without Santa Anita. Can't really say the other way 'round.

[letswastemoney]

They could...adjust their training methods to adapt to Pro-Ride...buy horses from synthetic sires (Unusual Heat, Candy Ride)...

the trainers struggle because they don't understand synthetics and insist on training their young horses the same way of going fast, fast, fast with no regard that when those horses grow up and start racing in longer races, they need to slow down in the beginning of a route race on Pro-Ride.

[gm10]

They could...adjust their training methods to adapt to Pro-Ride...buy horses from synthetic sires (Unusual Heat, Candy Ride)...

the trainers struggle because they don't understand synthetics and insist on training their young horses the same way of going fast, fast, fast with no regard that when those horses grow up and start racing in longer races, they need to slow down in the beginning of a route race on Pro-Ride.

Well said ... it's only a matter of time before some trainers figure this out, and I hope we still have the pro-ride when they do. I honestly don't see any benefits from going back to dirt. It's expensive and probably less safe for the horses. Better spend their money on studying how they keep the track going without any cancelations at places like Woodbine and Golden Gate Fields.

[Dave Schwartz]

Bluegrass,

You make valid points.

There is no doubt in MY mind that SA's surface has been a bad thing for racing. Is it not logical that the guys who made that bad decision to begin with should not get someone else help them undo that decision?

Of course it doesn't make sense!!! But such is the case when those in charge have the power to decide who pays.

The idea that horsemen should foot part of the bill is a ridiculous.


I mean no rancor in this but can you imagine how the bettors feel when they are (indirectly) asked to pay for improvements such as this via takeout hikes? ("Asked" is a more-than-polite way of saying it.)

Over the years that has been precisely what the players have experienced: Horsemen complain that they aren't making enough, track says "let's raise takeout." The only difference is that horsemen have a collective voice to disagree.


Sorry to hijack the thread towards the most important issues (to most of us), but it is the same thing.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Show Me the Wire]

Were we just passing time when we created this poll? :lol:
Lets here from those that voted yes, and why.........Did we not debate, yet overall agree, that trainers, for the most part, excepting the top tier, struggle? What happened to the folks that feel we should only get paid in the afternoon, and not for our labors in the morningtime? Seems we want a select few to pay for the track, if my summation of previous threads is accurate.....
Whats wrong with the folks that paid for the last one? They find monies to bid on other tracks, fund breeding ops and so forth. Bankruptcy at its highest level does not negate cashflow. Come on folks..........

What happened to everyone must work together to solve problems plaguing the industry? If Santa Anita is losing handle due to AWS the horseman will lose in the long run too. They need a facility to run, unless we return to private racing and wagering.

Ownership did not cause this problem, but a governmental regulatory party. Ownership as a result of complying with the regulatory authority, is now experiencing financial problems and cannot replace the surface without raising new revenue or increasing current revenue. The trainers want the track replaced.

Since revenue cannot be increased through handle, while the current surface exists, other methods to raise or increase revenue are needed.

Revenue, to replace the track surface, can be raised in several ways. One way being by increasing the take-out, raising prices on concessions, etc. These methods are not fan friendly and would already add to the heavy financial burden of participation, which would result in more revenue loss.

Also, revenue can be created through cost cutting, such as cutting daily purses or finding new streams of income, such as trainers paying rental for stalls or contributing as a partners working together with the track to bring forth the change the trainers want.


Remember the guys who made the poor decision were a government regulatory body and not ownership.

Or maybe ownership should have just closed the track like Arlington closed a few years ago, instead of complying with the regulatory mandate. In hindsight that would have been the best decision.

[Hanover1]

What happened to everyone must work together to solve problems plaguing the industry? If Santa Anita is losing handle due to AWS the horseman will lose in the long run too. They need a facility to run, unless we return to private racing and wagering.

Ownership did not cause this problem, but a governmental regulatory party. Ownership as a result of complying with the regulatory authority, is now experiencing financial problems and cannot replace the surface without raising new revenue or increasing current revenue. The trainers want the track replaced.

Since revenue cannot be increased through handle, while the current surface exists, other methods to raise or increase revenue are needed.

Revenue, to replace the track surface, can be raised in several ways. One way being by increasing the take-out, raising prices on concessions, etc. These methods are not fan friendly and would already add to the heavy financial burden of participation, which would result in more revenue loss.

Also, revenue can be created through cost cutting, such as cutting daily purses or finding new streams of income, such as trainers paying rental for stalls or contributing as a partners working together with the track to bring forth the change the trainers want.


Remember the guys who made the poor decision were a government regulatory body and not ownership.

Or maybe ownership should have just closed the track like Arlington closed a few years ago, instead of complying with the regulatory mandate. In hindsight that would have been the best decision.
Good points to ponder...Whatever solution is arrived at will not come easy, or please everyone involved. Change in business is seldom seamless.

[rwwupl]

Bluegrass,

You make valid points.

There is no doubt in MY mind that SA's surface has been a bad thing for racing. Is it not logical that the guys who made that bad decision to begin with should not get someone else help them undo that decision?

Of course it doesn't make sense!!! But such is the case when those in charge have the power to decide who pays.

The idea that horsemen should foot part of the bill is a ridiculous.


I mean no rancor in this but can you imagine how the bettors feel when they are (indirectly) asked to pay for improvements such as this via takeout hikes? ("Asked" is a more-than-polite way of saying it.)

Over the years that has been precisely what the players have experienced: Horsemen complain that they aren't making enough, track says "let's raise takeout." The only difference is that horsemen have a collective voice to disagree.


Sorry to hijack the thread towards the most important issues (to most of us), but it is the same thing.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz



Dave, I like your post and what you say is true...but I do not think the horsemen should have to be forced to pay for the mistakes of others.

Stronach is playing his version of power ball, and it is not attractive to any one, even though some of his ideas(when we know what they are) may not be too bad.

The responsibility to fix the problem is with the State of California and the Associations, and the horsemen should not bend to blackmail... Horsemen can stick together and create more economic pressure to create proper change.

The economics have now directed that change is in the air... lets make sure that everyone gets a fair deal...our future depends on it.

rwwupl

[Dave Schwartz]

Dave, I like your post and what you say is true...but I do not think the horsemen should have to be forced to pay for the mistakes of others.


:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[Kimsus]

As stated in another thread, realizing the Santa Anita's problematic surface is a result of an unfunded government mandate and not ownnership, should the trainers donate a percentage of their purse winnings to a replacement slush fund, in lieu of raising take out?

Bob Baffert should, though I jest, I wonder what his stance will be on going back to dirt after the weekend he has had. The guy is on fire as is M Garcia.

[gm10]

One thing I'm not clear about is why this surface is hurting trainers. How are they hurting more than trainers in the other states of the US where handle and purses have equally fallen?

[Show Me the Wire]

One thing I'm not clear about is why this surface is hurting trainers. How are they hurting more than trainers in the other states of the US where handle and purses have equally fallen?

I don't know you have to ask are profilic poster, who posts about all the trainers hating the stuff.

As far as I know Hawthorne is a dirt race surface and they are experiencing financial troubles and small field sizes, which caused Hawthorne to card a 4 day race meet this spring, instead of a 5 day card. One would think Hawthorne would be seeking extra days to accomodate the over flowing fields, for trainers wanting to run on dirt and the accompanying demand for betting on the dirt product.

Also, Hoosier Park, a dirt track just filed for bankruptcy protection.

My opinion is the economy is much more to blame than any surface, but hey what do I know.

[gm10]

I don't know you have to ask are profilic poster, who posts about all the trainers hating the stuff.

As far as I know Hawthorne is a dirt race surface and they are experiencing financial troubles and small field sizes, which caused Hawthorne to card a 4 day race meet this spring, instead of a five day card. One would think Hawthorne would be seeking extra days to accomodate the over flowing fields, for trainers wanting to run on dirt and the accompanying demand for betting on the dirt product.

Also, Hoosier Downs, a dirt track just filed for bankruptcy protection.

My opinion is the economy is much more to blame than any surface, but hey what do I know.

One other factor is that there are less deaths but more back-leg injuries which would be a negative pressure on the bottom line. Injured horses are more expensive than dead horses - my simplistic view anyway.

[andymays]

California Thoroughbred Trainers takes position against synthetic surfaces

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/national-news/2010/January/28/California-Thoroughbred-Trainers-takes-position-against-synthetic-surfaces.aspx

Excerpt:

The newly installed board of directors of the California Thoroughbred Trainers will seek to replace the state’s synthetic racetrack surfaces with natural surfaces.

In a statement, the board said the position is based on a recent poll of the membership.

[Show Me the Wire]

California Thoroughbred Trainers takes position against synthetic surfaces

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/national-news/2010/January/28/California-Thoroughbred-Trainers-takes-position-against-synthetic-surfaces.aspx

Excerpt:

The newly installed board of directors of the California Thoroughbred Trainers will seek to replace the state’s synthetic racetrack surfaces with natural surfaces.

In a statement, the board said the position is based on a recent poll of the membership.

Yes, we know their postion.

The question is how can the trainers and other detractors specifically say the decrease in handle is solely attributable to the surface, when tracks throughout the country, including dirt tracks are experiencing a decrease in handle and field sizes too.

[illinoisbred]

I don't know you have to ask are profilic poster, who posts about all the trainers hating the stuff.

As far as I know Hawthorne is a dirt race surface and they are experiencing financial troubles and small field sizes, which caused Hawthorne to card a 4 day race meet this spring, instead of a 5 day card. One would think Hawthorne would be seeking extra days to accomodate the over flowing fields, for trainers wanting to run on dirt and the accompanying demand for betting on the dirt product.

Also, Hoosier Park, a dirt track just filed for bankruptcy protection.

My opinion is the economy is much more to blame than any surface, but hey what do I know.
Hawthorne does have some serious problems. The move from 3 day weeks to 4 looks premature. Tommorrow's card has just 59 horses competing in only 8 races(they couldn't fill a 9th). It's apparent the racing secretary is hitting up several trainers for multiple entrants just to fill many races. Saturday's total handle was only 1.4+ million. With attractive racing at Fair Grounds, Oaklawn, and Gulfsteam, Hawthorne's rather ugly racing can't compete and the meet is losing it's viability. I can't see them keeping the ghost of the former National Jockey Club meet alive too much longer outside of a 3 week "boutique" meet before Arlington opens. Also, Arlington will be racing just 4 days a week this year.

[andymays]

Yes, we know their postion.

The question is how can the trainers and other detractors specifically say the decrease in handle is solely attributable to the surface, when tracks throughout the country, including dirt tracks are experiencing a decrease in handle and field sizes too.


In #16 you responded to gm10 about the surface hurting trainers. Then you asked about all the trainers hating the stuff.

The article addresses that post. The majority of Trainers are against synthetic. Nothing more. Nothing about handle.

[Show Me the Wire]

Andymays:

Here is the question and I highlighted the part about handle falling, to which I answered.


One thing I'm not clear about is why this surface is hurting trainers. How are they hurting more than trainers in the other states of the US where handle and purses have equally fallen?


I included in my response the finacial condition of two dirt track operations, because of the above question and I referred to you becuase of your intimate knowledge of why the So.Cal. trainers think that the AWS surface hurt handle.

Sorry for the confusion. With the above clarification about loss of handle, could you please tell us why the trainers feel the loss of handle in So. Cal. is directly due to the AWS surfaces and not the general economy?

[fmolf]

One thing I'm not clear about is why this surface is hurting trainers. How are they hurting more than trainers in the other states of the US where handle and purses have equally fallen?
Exactly.....Find out who in the california racing world made money off the "all weather track :lol: " and get them to kickback some of their kickback and install dirt!

[andymays]

Andymays:

Here is the question and I highlighted the part about handle falling, to which I answered.





I included in my response the finacial condition of two dirt track operations, because of the above question and I referred to you becuase of your intimate knowledge of why the So.Cal. trainers think that the AWS surface hurt handle.

Sorry for the confusion. With the above clarification about loss of handle, could you please tell us why the trainers feel the loss of handle in So. Cal. is directly due to the AWS surfaces and not the general economy?

I didn't read that anywhere and all I would say about that is we won't know about handle comparisons for a few years. There have been too many signal blocking issues along with weather issues to know.