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

[Claimboxx]

You have a high percentage guy like Ron Ellis who picks his spots and doesn't run his horses too often. Then there is a Barry Abrams who runs them often and wins at a lower percentage but picks up checks. Barry's style is probably better for California Racing and I'm sure the racing Secretaries like him helping fill fields. A guy like Barry enables a guy like an Ellis or Baffert to enter a race that will go. Without guys like Barry the others would have to ship out to run at certain class levels. So for that reason I think starter fees are appropriate right now.

If Barry is "picking up checks" when running his horses more often then he is already being rewarded for his efforts. If Ron Ellis is not running his horses enough it is bad for his owners and he will suffer the consequences.

Just saying there are different ways of looking at things. If there is a better option than increased starter fees that could increase field size then I'm all for it. The TOC got a massive purse hike when they raised the takeout. I'm not sure they've done what's right with the extra money and that's one reason I'm for going down to 55% on the win end.

Then again they can raise the takeout another few points. LOL

Two points of contention...
So with higher starter fees, you get a low profile trainer to enter a race he doesn't belong in to make a race go and guarantee a starter fee, Baffert enters two horses for said race, runs one-two, everyone is happy EXCEPT for the bettor who cannot do anything with the race...Starter fees have been exploited by owners/trainers that have non competitive horses and want their monthly expenses paid

Andymays, the TOC got a massive purse hike which went to PURSES!!!!!! Do you think the purses over the past two years could have possibly been this big or compteted with other slot infused racetracks without the increase???There was a mass exodus of horses leaving and it was going to continue if something had not been done.. Was it ideal to raise the takeout, NO!!!! But the smaller fields would have continued to diminish further if something wasn't done...

And then we go back to the boycott year when Santa Anita was down something like 100 million in handle but the TOC got theirs. When Hollywood Park put in the P5 handle was on pace to be down close to 400 million in Ca.

There's a optimal price for everything. The take raise put more money in the pockets of guys that don't need it like Pegram/Baffert and took money from the guys that do need it like Horseplayers.

Maybe we shouldn't have starter fees at all then?

Andy, all involved (TOC members included), felt that raising the takeout was not the optimal way to have increased purses. Sitting in at the meetings, you know that to be the case. But the ingredients are simple.. We need horses to have races. Horses were going to slot infused tracks in droves... The horse shortage was burying So. Calif. racing. Something had to be done...Was anyone happy about the increased takeout? Obviously NOT! I gamble and I have owned horses, so I see all sides of this. no horses, no races for people to bet on... People have nothing to gamble on, owners have no purses to race for...It is a Catch 22 with no easy answers. I think the fact we are seeing bigger purses and improved handle indicates that the effort to keep horses in So. Calif. by whatever means neccessary worked to some degree....

As far as starter fees, they were originally started to compete on Friday night's where the expenses were much greater for the trainer. The money was meant to go to the help, but didn't always go there... I am not against completely eliminating the starter fees, but I certainly DO NOT think they should be any higher than they are now and I do not think when trainers run horses in ghastly spots, it helps anyone (Except the owner/trainer who was fortunate enough to have that race filled by a horse that had no chance)

[Andymays]

The take hike was also at the expense of the Tracks who have had to lay off dozens of people over the last year. The TOC doesn't even give them an equal split of the P5 takeout even though they had a verbal agreement to adjust the cut.

Anyway I have to take off. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all.

[Suddenice]

ALL the Track Execs that I've spoken to about it would like them higher not only because it helps the smaller outfits make it out here but because horses will run more often.

Are these the same track execs that use to have 25,000 fans in the grandstand and now have 2500? Does it include the track exec that ended up demolishing his track in Northern California? These track execs need to spend time marketing their product and figuring out how to get fans back to their facility through price, promotion, branding, and superior customer service and less time on how to reallocate owners purse money from the winners, to the losers.

[Suddenice]

Maybe we shouldn't have starter fees at all then?

That would be the optimal solution. It would put a few million dollars back into the purse structure and allow $8K claimers to run for $19K instead of $17K at SA, mdn sp to run for $58K or $60K instead of $56K and add a few stakes races back into the stakes calendar. That would drive more horses and owners willing to buy or claim more horses more so than getting $250 for running last.

[Igeteven]

When we had a horse storage, remember I suggested a grand per horse to start, then someone said, Trainers would run unfit horses.

I still believe, that each owner should get a grand to run his horse, if a Trainers runs a unfit horse and is caught, his license is gone. No appeal,

This would stop a few trainers that I know of.

Vets would have to clamp down on these type of trainers that would run a horse into the ground.

[Claimboxx]

When we had a horse storage, remember I suggested a grand per horse to start, then someone said, Trainers would run unfit horses.

I still believe, that each owner should get a grand to run his horse, if a Trainers runs a unfit horse and is caught, his license is gone. No appeal,

This would stop a few trainers that I know of.

Vets would have to clamp down on these type of trainers that would run a horse into the ground.

and this magic $1000 starter fee would come from where???? Do you think anything out before you spew it?

[Igeteven]

Dear Claimboxx or Stocker, I think that should be your new name,


There is money there to protect the owners, As the player, I want to see full fields and continue to see full fields.

the money there, just has to be re arrange, also I would favor a increase in take out to see full fields. Increase the take out on straight bets, just a little to cover the costs. LEAVE THE REST OF THE BETS ALONE.

As I previously said, it cost a small fortune to keep an animal at the race track.

Any owners out there wants to comment on this.

[Triple Threat]

Dear Claimboxx or Stocker, I think that should be your new name,

Sharp post

[Claimboxx]

Dear Claimboxx or Stocker, I think that should be your new name,


There is money there to protect the owners, As the player, I want to see full fields and continue to see full fields.

the money there, just has to be re arrange, also I would favor a increase in take out to see full fields. Increase the take out on straight bets, just a little to cover the costs. LEAVE THE REST OF THE BETS ALONE.

As I previously said, it cost a small fortune to keep an animal at the race track.

Any owners out there wants to comment on this.

Way to take an interesting thread and stop it to a halt...Your insight and spelling just compels people to no end...
Money to PROTECT the owner... One wonders where the PROTECTION money comes from.. You are too stupid for words, believe me on this.

[Claimboxx]

Dear Claimboxx or Stocker, I think that should be your new name,

Sharp post

Maybe he means "Shtarker" from Get Smart.