Possible new source for purses

[elhelmete]

Originally Posted by horsefan2019

Its more likely the found money will be diverted to non-horse racing programs.

As it 100000% should. It's beyond foolish to think there is a legitimate nexis between the two.

[thaskalos]

Candybag is eagerly searching for a new "source for purses". But does the horse racing industry deserve a new "source for purses"? The racino money has already been used to increase the purses, and the long term effect of this increase hasn't had a positive effect on the state of the game. Why should we believe that an additional purse increase would bring about any better results this time around?

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Candybag is eagerly searching for a new "source for purses". But does the horse racing industry deserve a new "source for purses"? The racino money has already been used to increase the purses, and the long term effect of this increase hasn't had a positive effect on the state of the game. Why should we believe that an additional purse increase would bring about any better results this time around?

I suspect what would really make a difference with ownership is if they could make it a tax deduction again because it's a losing game except for all but a lucky few. When my uncle was an owner in the 80s that was the situation. Once that went away it was a whole new ballgame. Even though he really liked owning a couple of horses he didn't hang around the track for much longer. Purses 'seem' fairly high as it is, so I think you could probably double them and in short order all of the 'treatments' everyone is convinced they need to compete would siphon the $$$ off. All of the costs to do business would suddenly go up, why because they're paying the owner more money, in other words there will be no legit reason.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by MJC922

I suspect what would really make a difference with ownership is if they could make it a tax deduction again because it's a losing game except for all but a lucky few. When my uncle was an owner in the 80s that was the situation. Once that went away it was a whole new ballgame. Even though he really liked owning a couple of horses he didn't hang around the track for much longer. Purses 'seem' fairly high as it is, so I think you could probably double them and in short order all of the 'treatments' everyone is convinced they need to compete would siphon the $$$ off. All of the costs to do business would suddenly go up, why because they're paying the owner more money, in other words there will be no legit reason.

The majority of horse owners are people with financial means to play a losing game. I don't think it's in anyone's best interest to subsidize these owners with tax breaks.

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by AndyC

The majority of horse owners are people with financial means to play a losing game. I don't think it's in anyone's best interest to subsidize these owners with tax breaks.

I think you would be surprised at how many are just small business owners or doctors etc at smaller tracks. We could argue those people shouldn't be owners and only Vanderbilt and Whitney, but then half of the smaller tracks would be gone overnight. It's a sport for elites at the elite levels but there's more there than meets the eye and if all of the smaller tracks go away there's going to be a whole lot of backsiders working at walmart.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by MJC922

I think you would be surprised at how many are just small business owners or doctors etc at smaller tracks. We could argue those people shouldn't be owners and only Vanderbilt and Whitney, half of the smaller tracks would be gone overnight. It's a sport for elites at the elite levels but there's more there than meets the eye and if all of the smaller tracks go away there's going to be a whole lot of backsiders working at walmart.

I think anybody who wants to be an owner should be an owner. Clearly these owners have made a decision to spend their discretionary funds on the ownership of horses.



There are and have been many industries that have gone away due to a lack of demand for their products. It's a sad situation when the workers get displaced. But it's a sadder situation when the taxpayers are asked to subsidize a failing nonessential industry.

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by AndyC

The majority of horse owners are people with financial means to play a losing game. I don't think it's in anyone's best interest to subsidize these owners with tax breaks.

I wonder how many percent of horse owners turn a profit?

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by AndyC

I think anybody who wants to be an owner should be an owner. Clearly these owners have made a decision to spend their discretionary funds on the ownership of horses.



There are and have been many industries that have gone away due to a lack of demand for their products. It's a sad situation when the workers get displaced. But it's a sadder situation when the taxpayers are asked to subsidize a failing nonessential industry.

At what point does it become a net-negative to the taxpayers collectively when a group of employees who are actually paying taxes subsequently lose jobs and go on welfare/unemployment etc. With that being said I of course totally understand where you're coming from. I just think the full consequences and resulting aftermath can be difficult to discern.

[elhelmete]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

I wonder how many percent of horse owners turn a profit?

You want to see something sobering?

Open up a 10 year old chart from a good Saturday card at Belmont or SA and look at the owners and count how many are still owners.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

I wonder how many percent of horse owners turn a profit?

That percentage is sure to be higher than the percentage of profitable horseplayers.

[Robert Fischer]

Candybag, Don't tell me you are "THE" Wolf of Medicaid dollars paid in error.

If you are, then I'm a big fan; of your books AND of your podcasts.

[Mr_Ed]

Here's an idea. Lower the damn purses.

[racenomics]

Originally Posted by Mr_Ed

Here's an idea. Lower the damn purses.

Is it wrong that the real problem for Cali is Turfway and Oaklawn, the game would be better if they both cut purses 35%

[Candybag]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

Candybag, Don't tell me you are "THE" Wolf of Medicaid dollars paid in error.

If you are, then I'm a big fan; of your books AND of your podcasts.

I have been given a special gift. One if my friends said there will be a movie about my life, which I seriously doubt. If a movie was made, I would not expect anyone to believe it. At times, I do not even believe my life.

Many on this forum think I am trolling or crazy. Not trolling, perhaps crazy. I have been told many times in my career that something cannot be accomplished. In fact, I been told on this forum my idea has zero chance. The idea has to be one of the craziest to hit this horse racing forum, that everyone can agree upon.

Yet, within a month of being on this forum, I have a clear path to important groups in this industry. If I told you the person's name who is taking me to the dance and why he will get me audience, the futures pool would be 1/9 and a huge minus pool. Would I get $2.20 if we start in West Virginia?

I expect nobody to believe me, I ask of no monies. I do expect to be put in front of racing authorities, then Medicaid administrators. Let them decide my level of sanity.

Ironic: The Sport of Kings may move forward via the assistance given to widows and orphans. You just cannot make this stuff up.