|
|
12-20-2017, 09:03 AM
|
#46
|
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 5,222
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey
What is the winning share of the purse however...and for the rest of the placings...?
Does anybody have the actual conditions for the race, etc, I looked but couldn't find anything on the net for the 2018 running.
|
Last year it was .583, .145, .08, and .02 down the line.
This year we know it'll be .04 down the line. I haven't seen the other splits.
|
|
|
12-20-2017, 09:29 AM
|
#47
|
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 5,222
|
PS: the slot holders also get part of the profits from ticket sales, etc. GP only said the slot holders are guaranteed $650k. Nowhere did they say this figure isn't a combination of guaranteed purse and guaranteed earnings from other sources.
So maybe we can cool our jets and let the people putting up the money and putting on the shoe decide how this shakes out, and we can applaud the effort.
|
|
|
12-20-2017, 09:40 AM
|
#48
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 171
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SG4
Sorry to step in CJ but this is painful to watch so I will try to help & explain to Fager Fan in quick fashion & if he still doesn't get it I will remove myself from this as well:
It costs $1 million to get a slot, 12 slots = $12 million. GP is putting up $4 mil of its own money, making a $16 million purse. Here's the trick though, every single finisher is guaranteed to earn $650,000 so in reality nobody stands to lose more than $350,000. So actual risk & purse up for grabs is $350,000 x 12 which is $4.2 mil + the 4mil from GP so it's really a $8.2 million race for available purses, hence the nearly 50% not being in play.
An $8 million race is nothing to sneeze at, but saying it's $16 million is a farce.
|
I disagree that no one is losing more than $350,000. If you bought a slot to run a horse, you then have to pay for the transportation of owner, trainer, groom, and jockey of the horse. While one would say you would have to pay these expenses no matter where you run, I would suspect most of the field would be shipping in to Gulfstream for the race. The upset definitely outweighs the downsize for an owner, especially since most, if not all of these horses would have made sizable purses over their careers.
A question I have had from the start is, Do the people who invest the $1 million get a share of the tv rights, advertising, merchandising and other revenue generated by the event? If they do, that is great, if not, it seems like Stronach invented a way to have the owners subsidize the creating of an event in which he increases non wagering income and keeps the profit.
I am not saying this is good or bad, but if you look at the economics of this, the big winner is the racetrack. The key to this is making the sport and the bettors big winners also on that day.
|
|
|
12-20-2017, 09:55 AM
|
#49
|
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 5,222
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by exactatom
I disagree that no one is losing more than $350,000. If you bought a slot to run a horse, you then have to pay for the transportation of owner, trainer, groom, and jockey of the horse. While one would say you would have to pay these expenses no matter where you run, I would suspect most of the field would be shipping in to Gulfstream for the race. The upset definitely outweighs the downsize for an owner, especially since most, if not all of these horses would have made sizable purses over their careers.
A question I have had from the start is, Do the people who invest the $1 million get a share of the tv rights, advertising, merchandising and other revenue generated by the event? If they do, that is great, if not, it seems like Stronach invented a way to have the owners subsidize the creating of an event in which he increases non wagering income and keeps the profit.
I am not saying this is good or bad, but if you look at the economics of this, the big winner is the racetrack. The key to this is making the sport and the bettors big winners also on that day.
|
Yes, they share in the revenue from other sources. I posted about this just above, and that part of their guarantee in return could partly be from these sources.
Last edited by Fager Fan; 12-20-2017 at 09:57 AM.
|
|
|
12-20-2017, 12:07 PM
|
#50
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,046
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fager Fan
It's not a farce. That is the purse. Just because the splits are unusual doesn't make it not valid.
|
It's not just the splits, it's the source of the purse that is unique. Whereas typically an owner through starting fees puts up 1-2% of the purse, with the Pegasus World Cup conditions, owners are required to foot the vast majority of the purse.
Quote:
The slot owners have input and the guaranteed amounts are what they want, and they're willing to take that in lieu of the normal splits. They still have to run around the track to earn it.
|
Last year, 4 horses were able to double their career earnings simply by starting in the race: Neolithic, Semper Fortis, War Envoy, and Eragon. This is the main hole in the format in my opinion. Guaranteed amounts to the owner are fine, but when an owner can simply add earnings to a horse's official race record, there's a bit of a problem.
Taken to the extreme, you are messing with the stud book (i.e., I can make my well-bred allowance horse a "millionaire" by starting and, regardless of finish, improve his chances of becoming a stallion).
Quote:
Who complained last year of the guaranteed amounts supposedly not meaning the purse amount was the purse amount?
|
That's not a compelling argument. For one, last year most chatter was drowned out by the anticipation of an Arrogate-California Chrome rematch.
Secondly, a $250,000 guarantee return was somewhat palatable, but this year we are talking about a $400K boost to $650,000. This is way over the top and casts a glaring spotlight on the issues of total purse and individual career earnings.
|
|
|
12-20-2017, 12:20 PM
|
#51
|
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 5,222
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spalding No!
It's not just the splits, it's the source of the purse that is unique. Whereas typically an owner through starting fees puts up 1-2% of the purse, with the Pegasus World Cup conditions, owners are required to foot the vast majority of the purse.
Last year, 4 horses were able to double their career earnings simply by starting in the race: Neolithic, Semper Fortis, War Envoy, and Eragon. This is the main hole in the format in my opinion. Guaranteed amounts to the owner are fine, but when an owner can simply add earnings to a horse's official race record, there's a bit of a problem.
Taken to the extreme, you are messing with the stud book (i.e., I can make my well-bred allowance horse a "millionaire" by starting and, regardless of finish, improve his chances of becoming a stallion).
That's not a compelling argument. For one, last year most chatter was drowned out by the anticipation of an Arrogate-California Chrome rematch.
Secondly, a $250,000 guarantee return was somewhat palatable, but this year we are talking about a $400K boost to $650,000. This is way over the top and casts a glaring spotlight on the issues of total purse and individual career earnings.
|
So your complaint is about the money earnings records of horses? I've never considered it important, and that thought increased 10-fold after the DWC started running (followed by the BC upping their purse, and now the Pegasus). What can we do? It is what it is. We all know why CC won so much, and why Arrogate won so much. It doesn't mean that either was better than Sec or Slew or Fager.
You know, this is the way the sport got started. Owners put up their money to stake the claim that their horse was faster than the other owner's horse. Are we really going to be so picky in our criticisms that we ultimately object to the way the sport was started?
Aren't the biggest all-time earners still Japanese horses? Or maybe Arrogate overtook them as well, but none of us thought that it was a huge problem or ultimately represented the quality of the runner by the $ amount behind its name.
|
|
|
12-20-2017, 12:37 PM
|
#52
|
@TimeformUSfigs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
|
I tried to warn you guys.
|
|
|
12-20-2017, 12:50 PM
|
#53
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
|
The money record has always been somewhat artificial. The Pegasus definitely takes it a step farther.
|
|
|
12-20-2017, 01:47 PM
|
#54
|
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 5,222
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
I tried to warn you guys.
|
<rolling eyes>
|
|
|
12-20-2017, 01:57 PM
|
#55
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,046
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fager Fan
So your complaint is about the money earnings records of horses? I've never considered it important, and that thought increased 10-fold after the DWC started running (followed by the BC upping their purse, and now the Pegasus). We all know why CC won so much, and why Arrogate won so much. It doesn't mean that either was better than Sec or Slew or Fager.
|
I understand that you are savvy enough to see the BS involved with an individual horse's earnings record so why aren't you willing to admit to the BS involved in an individual race's purse?
By paying a minimum of $650K down to the last-place finisher, that portion of the purse ($7.8 million) in reality is negated whether or not nominally it is defined as part of the total purse.
Quote:
What can we do? It is what it is.
|
We can separate the real from the nominal.
Earlier you suggested it was "common sense" for the industry to pull the wool over the public's eye. The purse of the Pegasus World Cup is another one of those instances.
I don't see that philosophy as particularly "healthy" for the industry in this day and age.
Quote:
You know, this is the way the sport got started. Owners put up their money to stake the claim that their horse was faster than the other owner's horse. Are we really going to be so picky in our criticisms that we ultimately object to the way the sport was started?
|
Straw man argument. The argument is whether a slot owner is really putting up $1 million to start in the PWC versus $350K; the argument is not whether it is justified that an owner puts up any dollar amount at all to race his or her horse.
Quote:
Aren't the biggest all-time earners still Japanese horses? Or maybe Arrogate overtook them as well, but none of us thought that it was a huge problem or ultimately represented the quality of the runner by the $ amount behind its name.
|
I'm no expert, but at this point in time, Japan's Thoroughbred industry is still fairly isolated. Thus, comparing their purses and individual earnings to those of the rest of the world is moot.
Be that as it may, I would hazard a guess that in Japan one could still use individual earnings as a means of gauging a horse for betting purposes or other reasons (quality rankings, etc.). Their industry appears to be in good shape, unlike the one stateside.
|
|
|
12-20-2017, 02:00 PM
|
#56
|
@TimeformUSfigs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fager Fan
<rolling eyes>
|
I'll say I'm holding a $20,000,000 match race. The two rivals just have to put up 9,000,000 and I'd put up the extra $2,000,000. I'll guarantee each horse receives at least 9,000,000 dollars, the winner gets 11,000,000. Is it a 2,000,000 race or a 20,000,000 race? That is your answer. So simple even a toddler could figure it out. It is a 2,000,000 dollar race.
But Frank would credit both horses with "earnings" far greater than what they really earned. That is why it is a farce.
Last edited by cj; 12-20-2017 at 02:33 PM.
|
|
|
12-20-2017, 03:20 PM
|
#57
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 5,870
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
I'll say I'm holding a $20,000,000 match race. The two rivals just have to put up 9,000,000 and I'd put up the extra $2,000,000. I'll guarantee each horse receives at least 9,000,000 dollars, the winner gets 11,000,000. Is it a 2,000,000 race or a 20,000,000 race? That is your answer. So simple even a toddler could figure it out. It is a 2,000,000 dollar race.
But Frank would credit both horses with "earnings" far greater than what they really earned. That is why it is a farce.
|
does the rider still get paid 10% of the 20 million purse
|
|
|
12-20-2017, 03:58 PM
|
#58
|
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 5,222
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMB@BP
does the rider still get paid 10% of the 20 million purse
|
The rider never gets 10% of the $20m or $2m or $100k purse.
|
|
|
12-20-2017, 04:00 PM
|
#59
|
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 5,222
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
I'll say I'm holding a $20,000,000 match race. The two rivals just have to put up 9,000,000 and I'd put up the extra $2,000,000. I'll guarantee each horse receives at least 9,000,000 dollars, the winner gets 11,000,000. Is it a 2,000,000 race or a 20,000,000 race? That is your answer. So simple even a toddler could figure it out. It is a 2,000,000 dollar race.
But Frank would credit both horses with "earnings" far greater than what they really earned. That is why it is a farce.
|
Oh, yeah, that's really similar. 4% versus 50ish%.
The fact is that it's a $16m purse, whether you like the way it's split or not. So simple even a toddler could figure it out. How old are you again?
|
|
|
12-20-2017, 04:08 PM
|
#60
|
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 5,222
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spalding No!
I understand that you are savvy enough to see the BS involved with an individual horse's earnings record so why aren't you willing to admit to the BS involved in an individual race's purse?
By paying a minimum of $650K down to the last-place finisher, that portion of the purse ($7.8 million) in reality is negated whether or not nominally it is defined as part of the total purse.
We can separate the real from the nominal.
Earlier you suggested it was "common sense" for the industry to pull the wool over the public's eye. The purse of the Pegasus World Cup is another one of those instances.
I don't see that philosophy as particularly "healthy" for the industry in this day and age.
Straw man argument. The argument is whether a slot owner is really putting up $1 million to start in the PWC versus $350K; the argument is not whether it is justified that an owner puts up any dollar amount at all to race his or her horse.
I'm no expert, but at this point in time, Japan's Thoroughbred industry is still fairly isolated. Thus, comparing their purses and individual earnings to those of the rest of the world is moot.
Be that as it may, I would hazard a guess that in Japan one could still use individual earnings as a means of gauging a horse for betting purposes or other reasons (quality rankings, etc.). Their industry appears to be in good shape, unlike the one stateside.
|
Did you have this issue when the Derby purse was being 50% funded by the owners (I guess it's 20% now)? Or when the BC races had large extra funding by supplemental entries? Or heck, when there's funding through the state bred programs?
What exactly is the problem here? Stronach doesn't take as his own the natural resources of a country, so he has to at least try to make some sense of spending where the Sheikh doesn't. They are trying to make the risk/reward palatable for the entire field until such time the race grows to not need the participants to take on such a big risk. So they'll pay 4% all the way down. After the BC got established, they were able retool the way they were funded as well.
The earnings records and amounts have zero to do with anything except that it helps the bank accounts of the participants.
|
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Rate This Thread |
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|