|
Vic and SRU,
With the irony of lumping you two together you two couldn't be more wrong.
I could point out that lots of top owners like Stonestreet, Repole, The Mosses and Jim Rome never shock down tracks for purse bumps and appearances fees.
I could also point out the same group of people tried to shake down the same track tow years ago for appearance money just to parade the horse.
But I'll tackle your point. Which is essentially capitalism. It's a free market. Del Mar can take or leave the horse. There's nothing wrong with getting as much money for your product (the horse) when people want your product. Greed is good. Greed is fair.
Only what you're not acknowledging is horse racing especially in SoCal isn't capitalism. Far from it.
There's a reason i post at least once a week that horseman are killing horse racing. BECAUSE HORSEMEN ARE KILLING THE SPORT OF HORSE RACING!
Art Sherman underscores this argument perfectly.
Horse racing is a co-op. You need multiple groups for it to exist. You need horseman (lumped in for this purpose with owners and jockeys,) race track operators, regulatory groups and always last bettors. Out of all these groups the one groups who never plays nice with the others is the horseman. Insurance costs up? We got to raise the takeout or the horseman will walk! Feed costs up? We got to raise the takeout. Hollywood Park closing? Horseman can't afford their own shipping costs. We've got to reach into the takeout and create a fund to pay for their shipping. Welfare on top of welfare.
So when Art Sherman had a barn full of crappy horses and his business was going to fail along with lots of other trainers. We raised the takeout. How many times in California racing did we raise the takeout in the last 20-30 years because if we didn't give Art and his buddies this handout he'd quit? SoCal trainers are the welfare queens of the raise the takeout solution. True or false through takeout I will pay more to ship his horses to race than he will?
So Art's the welfare queen and he hits the lottery and gets a once in lifetime horse. So now what does he want? Well he wants more money. Sure we had an agreement on purse structure and a stakes schedule but like with all horsemen when things are good or bad those things go out the window.
So you two want to give Art another million. Why not? Art always gets what he wants. Lets make the purse $5 million and just fund it with 40% takeout.
And I love how both of you frame it as "Del Mar's money." Like Harper is just going to cut a million off his end. At least admit that you're not naive enough to think the extra million isn't going to come out of the bettors pockets one way or another. At least admit the people on this board will finance giving a million dollars to a horse who's already made $10 million.
So when Art has crappy horses I have to finance his business through raised takeout because Art whines he's not making a living. And when Art has good horses I need to pay additional purse money because he feels he has leverage and the sports NEEDS California Chrome. The bettors always pays. Bettors will finance this sport on horsemen's terms until the day the last track closes.
And you two sit back and call this free market capitalism. I'm pretty sure Adam Smith and David Hume would question whether you two were paying attention in school.
|
