Racing trends (field size, horses, starts, etc.)

[The_Turf_Monster]

Originally Posted by cj

Crucial to what? Seems like another way to say we don't have as many horses as we used to have.

We'd have a greater demand for horses if they didn't cost what they do to keep them in training. I don't know if there's a solution to that

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by the little guy

The problem with this concept is it's based on a flawed notion that somehow the breeding industry can find a way to produce only good horses that will be necessary to fill these supposed "high-level" meets. It doesn't work that way, and thus lower level racing is necessary for the entire ecosystem to work.

Never had a notion that the breeding industry could give us 5 contenders for the Triple Crown in one year. That said, is the way the breeding industry, as it is now, can improve?

Generics is like playing the lottery. And the effect of "drugs", or lasix, or any other drug, has clouded the subject. Not a good combination. The dependency on this, the "low level" racing, is a concern. Has been for a while.

Just some random thoughts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf23KfIW3dc

[Parson]

Originally Posted by jay68802

Average field size is higher than I thought it would be, but not by much.

Thought these numbers might add a little to the conversation.
Foal crop for those years.

2009: 29,612

2010: 25,954

2011: 22,653

2012: 21,469

2013: 21,429

2014: 21,418

2015: 21,486

2016: 21,024

2017: 20,900

2018: 19,925

I would be curious exactly when the tax laws changed for owning horses. If i am not mistaken, and I have been many times in the past, years ago you could depreciate a horse like any other number of things for business. When that changed, many owners got out and therefore fewer being bred for sale. Just another part of many parts of the equation of why so few horses.

[Jeff P]

That's actually a good point.

I do know the real estate industry lobbied to get Opportunity Zones written into the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Qualified Opportunity Zones were created by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. These zones are designed to spur economic development and job creation in distressed communities throughout the country and U.S. possessions by providing tax benefits to investors who invest eligible capital into these communities. Taxpayers may defer tax on eligible capital gains by making an appropriate investment in a Qualified Opportunity Fund and meeting other requirements.

Has the NTRA or The Jockey Club been actively pursuing advantageous tax treatment for investment related to horse racing? (For example, incentives to spur horse breeding or purchase of property/equipment to facilitate horse breeding?)


-jp

.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

That's actually a good point.

I do know the real estate industry lobbied to get Opportunity Zones written into the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.


Has the NTRA or The Jockey Club been actively pursuing advantageous tax treatment for investment related to horse racing? (For example, incentives to spur horse breeding or purchase of property/equipment to facilitate horse breeding?)


-jp

.

Alex Waldrop, the president of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, which pushed for the renewal of the three-year depreciation schedule, said that the reinstatement of the break “helps attract and retain investment in the horse racing industry.”

https://www.drf.com/news/spending-bi...ation-schedule

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by Parson

I would be curious exactly when the tax laws changed for owning horses. If i am not mistaken, and I have been many times in the past, years ago you could depreciate a horse like any other number of things for business. When that changed, many owners got out and therefore fewer being bred for sale. Just another part of many parts of the equation of why so few horses.

That was well before 2009, sometime in the early 90's I think.

[Parson]

that is what I thought. it was removed or taken away in the early 1990's. now go back and look at the foal crop from then. I would be willing to bet somewhere around 1992 or so is when the foal crop began to decline.

[Trips]

Originally Posted by Parson

that is what I thought. it was removed or taken away in the early 1990's. now go back and look at the foal crop from then. I would be willing to bet somewhere around 1992 or so is when the foal crop began to decline.

12-15 years later than that.
Parson, have you been to the Poplar Level location yet?

[vegasone]

About right. As soon as they took away some tax advantages to owning race horses, demand for them declined. Also many more places to gamble also has contributed to the decline of the number of bettors out for a good time.

Hitting a button on a mindless game to win a jackpot seems to be more entertaining to most people nowadays.

Just a lot of things causing the issue of foal numbers.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by jay68802

I guess my line of thinking follows what a few are saying here. The sport needs to concentrate on 2 things, and they are obvious.

New owners

New handicappers

Can't say one is more important than the other.

I think you can sum it up a lot better by saying racing needs "better economics" across the board.

1. Most owners lose money.

2. The vast majority of horse players lose money (except on this forum )

3. A lot of tracks would be bleeding red ink without casino subsidies.

4. I don't know much about the breeding side, but I doubt it's a great business.

That's not how you attract new owners and players. That why we have to take costs out of the industry and allow it generate more free cash flow.

If you have 10-20 tracks active and have to maintain all of them, that's a lot more expensive than having 3-4 active and most of the same handle going to those 3-4 instead of being spread out much more thinly. Each of the 3-4 will have extra money available to raise purses and theoretically even operate with a lower take. Then there's at least some potential to attract new people because the chances of being successful will be higher.

It's a different world.

We don't need as many physical plants when there are better uses for the land and almost everyone bets via computer and phone instead of going to the track.

Fewer people are willing to throw away money on ownership than years ago. People are more sensitive to getting a return on their investments or at least coming close to breaking even for the fun.

edit: the tax break issue probably DID impact the economics of ownership, but it's not going to be easy (or probably even very smart) for government to be subsidizing horse ownership with more attractive tax laws. (and this is coming from an owner who would stand to benefit and whose politics are more right leaning and libertarian)

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

If you have 10-20 tracks active and have to maintain all of them, that's a lot more expensive than having 3-4 active and most of the same handle going to those 3-4 instead of being spread out much more thinly. Each of the 3-4 will have extra money available to raise purses and theoretically even operate with a lower take. Then there's at least some potential to attract new people because the chances of being successful will be higher.

My money says that the exact OPPOSITE will happen. The 3-4 tracks will see that the players now have much fewer betting options than they had before...and they will RAISE their takeouts, to take advantage of their newfound near-monopoly status.

[Parson]

when our horses get back from FL, I am there almost every morning. we are stabled there instead of churchill. our barn is not large enough to stable over at 4th and central. hoping this year maybe different. I think the trainer submits stall applications at the end of the month.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

My money says that the exact OPPOSITE will happen. The 3-4 tracks will see that the players now have much fewer betting options than they had before...and they will RAISE their takeouts, to take advantage of their newfound near-monopoly status.

It's true that in many if not most businesses, as you reduce the number of competitors, you get greater pricing power. However, horse racing is not just competing track against track. It's competing against lotteries, casinos, and sports. The competition has increased dramatically. That's why we are getting a much smaller share of the total gambling pie.

If we reduced the number of tracks and it did result in greater free cash flow per track for the remaining ones (as I would hope) and then instead of using that free cash to attract new owners and players they raised the take to try take advantage of the fact that there were fewer tracks, they would have to be "dumbest fvcks" of all time. Maybe you are right.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

My money says that the exact OPPOSITE will happen. The 3-4 tracks will see that the players now have much fewer betting options than they had before...and they will RAISE their takeouts, to take advantage of their newfound near-monopoly status.

When the tracks have a good supply of horse out there, purses will be reduced. Look at the huge purses NYRA pays out today, and the many, many pathetic fields they get for it, when there are not enough horses out there.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by Tom

When the tracks have a good supply of horse out there, purses will be reduced. Look at the huge purses NYRA pays out today, and the many, many pathetic fields they get for it, when there are not enough horses out there.

No they won't. A big part of purses is derived from handle, which would obviously go up if there was a "good supply of horses." So unless the law is changed as far as slot revenues designated for purses, the purses will go up.

Am I missing something?