Roger Stein show, Roger hits the nail right on the head.

[Igeteven]

With the new TOC, what have they done in this year nothing, I agree with Roger Stein. Lets not comment about his show, but the TOC.

Can anyone say what they have done to help the owner or the trainer or the player, or even to improve horse racing here in California.


Any comments.

[Andymays]

Handle goes up something like 30% or more when you go from a field of 7 to 9. It makes sense to pay higher starter fees. I think they're paying $250 now but $500 or even $750 would help a lot of the smaller outfits make expenses. It could also be paid in tiers so there's not much incentive to just run a horse around the track for the starter fee.

Maybe taking the Winner down to 55% instead of 60% to help boost the starter fees.

Bigger fields = More handle = bigger purses

I don't own but quite a few Owners I've spoken to think the starter fees should be much bigger than $250

[Claimboxx]

Handle goes up something like 30% or more when you go from a field of 7 to 9. It makes sense to pay higher starter fees. I think they're paying $250 now but $500 or even $750 would help a lot of the smaller outfits make expenses. It could also be paid in tiers so there's not much incentive to just run a horse around the track for the starter fee.

Maybe taking the Winner down to 55% instead of 60% to help boost the starter fees.

Bigger fields = More handle = bigger purses

I don't own but quite a few Owners I've spoken to think the starter fees should be much bigger than $250

Andy, In theory I agree with you, but when you have low percentage, non factor stables running 5 times a month to pay for the horses monthly bill, is it beneficial? or abused?...the hope is to get COMPETITIVE horses running in the right spots...

[Andymays]

Handle goes up something like 30% or more when you go from a field of 7 to 9. It makes sense to pay higher starter fees. I think they're paying $250 now but $500 or even $750 would help a lot of the smaller outfits make expenses. It could also be paid in tiers so there's not much incentive to just run a horse around the track for the starter fee.

Maybe taking the Winner down to 55% instead of 60% to help boost the starter fees.

Bigger fields = More handle = bigger purses

I don't own but quite a few Owners I've spoken to think the starter fees should be much bigger than $250

Andy, In theory I agree with you, but when you have low percentage, non factor stables running 5 times a month to pay for the horses monthly bill, is it beneficial? or abused?...the hope is to get COMPETITIVE horses running in the right spots...

So many people hit the all button on 10 cent supers that it will help handle even if the horse doesn't have a shot to win but could possibly finished fourth.

[Triple Threat]

You may be onto something Andy

I don't think it's any more abuse than what is currently going on. Business wise, I think it is definitely more of a positive than negative. I don't have breakdown stats at Monmouth the one meet that they guaranteed a high starter fee. What did happen was that handle was way up.

There needs to be a tiered purse structure, say by field size. For example, if a race draws above the current average field size, which I think is around 8?

Races that have 9-14 starters, perhaps raise the minimum starter fee to $1,000. So for example, a maiden race that draws 12 horses with a $50,000 purse would then be

1st: $30,000
2nd: $10,000
3rd: $5,000
4th: $2,500
5th: $1,500
6th-12th: $1,000

Purse is $6,000 higher (11% higher). In a sense, horse racing would become more like a welfare state where one can at least cover their expenses. I think this would help field size moreso than raising the winners share of the purse.

Northern California would be slightly lower, adjusted for the differences in the cost of training. But, a full field of $4,000 claimers with a $750 guaranteed starter fee is more likely to produce a full field of at least 8. They run for $9,000 right now, I believe at GG and the starter fee would be paid for 5th-12th instead of 6th.

1st: $4,500
2nd: $1,800
3rd: $1,300
4th: $900
5th-12th: $750

Purse of the race becomes $14,000 and with a full field, I think that the mutual handle at GG could sustain those purse levels, though this is merely a hypothesis.

[Andymays]

You may be onto something Andy

I don't think it's any more abuse than what is currently going on. Business wise, I think it is definitely more of a positive than negative. I don't have breakdown stats at Monmouth the one meet that they guaranteed a high starter fee. What did happen was that handle was way up.

There needs to be a tiered purse structure, say by field size. For example, if a race draws above the current average field size, which I think is around 8?

Races that have 9-14 starters, perhaps raise the minimum starter fee to $1,000. So for example, a maiden race that draws 12 horses with a $50,000 purse would then be

1st: $30,000
2nd: $10,000
3rd: $5,000
4th: $2,500
5th: $1,500
6th-12th: $1,000

Purse is $6,000 higher (11% higher). In a sense, horse racing would become more like a welfare state where one can at least cover their expenses. I think this would help field size moreso than raising the winners share of the purse.

Northern California would be slightly lower, adjusted for the differences in the cost of training. But, a full field of $4,000 claimers with a $750 guaranteed starter fee is more likely to produce a full field of at least 8. They run for $9,000 right now, I believe at GG and the starter fee would be paid for 5th-12th instead of 6th.

1st: $4,500
2nd: $1,800
3rd: $1,300
4th: $900
5th-12th: $750

Purse of the race becomes $14,000 and with a full field, I think that the mutual handle at GG could sustain those purse levels, though this is merely a hypothesis.

Good stuff.

The opposition comes from the big barns like Baffert/Pegram.

[Andyc]

Count me as opposed to higher starter fees. Owners and trainers should be placing their horses in races where they have a chance at part of the purse money. Rewarding mediocrity is insane. I don't want 12 horse fields where 9 of the horses are not competitive. But I guess the welfare/foodstamp/handout mentality is coming to racing.

[Vince P]

You may be onto something Andy

I don't think it's any more abuse than what is currently going on. Business wise, I think it is definitely more of a positive than negative. I don't have breakdown stats at Monmouth the one meet that they guaranteed a high starter fee. What did happen was that handle was way up.

There needs to be a tiered purse structure, say by field size. For example, if a race draws above the current average field size, which I think is around 8?

Races that have 9-14 starters, perhaps raise the minimum starter fee to $1,000. So for example, a maiden race that draws 12 horses with a $50,000 purse would then be

1st: $30,000
2nd: $10,000
3rd: $5,000
4th: $2,500
5th: $1,500
6th-12th: $1,000

Purse is $6,000 higher (11% higher). In a sense, horse racing would become more like a welfare state where one can at least cover their expenses. I think this would help field size moreso than raising the winners share of the purse.

Northern California would be slightly lower, adjusted for the differences in the cost of training. But, a full field of $4,000 claimers with a $750 guaranteed starter fee is more likely to produce a full field of at least 8. They run for $9,000 right now, I believe at GG and the starter fee would be paid for 5th-12th instead of 6th.

1st: $4,500
2nd: $1,800
3rd: $1,300
4th: $900
5th-12th: $750

Purse of the race becomes $14,000 and with a full field, I think that the mutual handle at GG could sustain those purse levels, though this is merely a hypothesis.

Surely you jest.

Are you telling me that 12th and most likely a last loving finish is worth as much as a competitive 7th place finish???????

Nonsense.

(actually what you suggested does makes sense)

Vince P

[Igeteven]

TT

One of the best responses you have ever written

[Andymays]

Count me as opposed to higher starter fees. Owners and trainers should be placing their horses in races where they have a chance at part of the purse money. Rewarding mediocrity is insane. I don't want 12 horse fields where 9 of the horses are not competitive. But I guess the welfare/foodstamp/handout mentality is coming to racing.

The cost of Ownership is way too high in the state. It's about the same as the ship and win where they get a bonus after their first start and a purse bonus.