do we need owners in racing?

A strange thought , owners are constantly complaining about stakes, costs of training vet bills etc

If all owners were to disappear will the operators be able to fund the buying of horses and paying the training fees,bills etc

Just a thought

The question i asked a few months ago "is racing a sport"


Taking away the owners ,takes away the sport of horseracing.

Yes but not an easy game and very frustrating but u hang in for that next win, might never come?

The"sport" can be amongst the trainers and jockeys,maybe less demanding complaining owners putting pressure on the trainers will result in horses being allowed to progress as their own pace instead of being rushed along to please the owners which results in many horses being run just for the sake of having a run which is unfair to the unknowing punter who thinks every horse in a race is a genuine trier

Racing is generally a mugg's game. Work out the money paid to all trainers in a month for training fees. Add on top the monies spent on vets. A trainer with 50 horses, training at R6000 per month, receives R300 000/month. Without other expenses, could you imagine the betting operators paying out ± R3mil plus extra's per month to keep 500 horses in training?

We know that overall the annual stakes fall very short of the annual fees paid by all owners in RSA.

I think that a high number of the horses racing in Hong Kong belong to the racing club?

Correct rob

sugahorse Wrote:

---

> Racing is generally a mugg's game. Work out the
> money paid to all trainers in a month for training
> fees. Add on top the monies spent on vets. A
> trainer with 50 horses, training at R6000 per
> month, receives R300 000/month. Without other
> expenses, could you imagine the betting operators
> paying out ± R3mil plus extra's per month to keep
> 500 horses in training?

Prof Kantor says that racing is a terrible investment. He asks why then is it so strong in the UK where it is the worst investment?

He says he realized it's because they love horses.

The only mugg is the bloke who thinks he can beat the game, when in fact he can't. If he can beat it, then he really is no mugg. However, if he enjoys it and hopes to win rather than expect, how is it different for anything he is prepared to pay for?

The sport (it's a business if you prepared to pay income tax on profits) needs people who participate within their means, and who are graceful losers.

It's idiots like Soodum who should start wagering on raindrops running down a window. He really doesn't get what the Thoroughbred Racehorse is all about. What a chop!!!!

I think that Soodum's question is a very interesting one,and worthy of debate!
The forums are full of predictions ,that unless stakes increase,there will be less and less owners and racing will fail.
Whilst the existing business model exists,and is managed by "P" I see no chance of stakes increasing ,so the question has a relevance.
I also don't think that suggesting punters find something else to punt on,is smart at all......."P"'s attitude of "if you don't like it,go elsewhere".......they did!.....and thats why we are where we are.

ORANGE Wrote:

---

> It's idiots like Soodum who should start wagering
> on raindrops running down a window. He really
> doesn't get what the Thoroughbred Racehorse is all
> about. What a chop!!!!

U clearly dnt understand the question sour grape,when u get a iq come back and debate

Racing cannot do without horses, riders and trainers.

It CAN and has surived without punters.

Case in point: Dubai.

Owners FUND the game.

Bookies don't fund it. Racing associations don't fund it.

Without the owners of the horses willing to take on the burden of funding the entire enterprise, there is no racing.

Racing started out without the need for an organized racing association.

It was started by owners that wanted to know which man's horse could beat the other man's horse.

The owners was there first. Entrepreneurial racing associations and bookies came later, as others (punters) wanted in on the action.

Who complains more, owners or punters?

What is the investment of punters?

Punters should be thrilled that owners have horses to race, that jockeys ride them, that trainers train them and that some entrepreneurs think enough of the game that they can make money conducting the sport.

If racing associations and punters left the game tomorrow, racing of horses would NOT cease.

Racing would continue in a smaller venue and jockeys and trainers would still be employed by owners.

This is not a game controlled by jockeys and owners, although they would have you believe that it is. And, because of how the game is structured by the racing associations, it has that outward look.

FYI, the original punters were the owners of the horses, who bet each other, without the need of a bookie or a racing association.

In today's modern racing world, racing is a cooperative venture in which the grand bargain is that if a racetrack puts on a nice enough show, they make money. If punters like the show, they pay to see it and bet money on it. Owners race for a portion of the money wagered.

What is tilted in today's equation in South Africa, among other places, is that greedy bookies keep too much of the money instead of returning or investing it back in the game.

Owners are a game lot, because they race horses knowing that it is virtually impossible to make money or cover their expenses. Owners are the ONLY part of the equation between racing associations, trainers, jockeys and bookies that consistently lose money.

One day, if the equation does not change, people that own horses may stop and return to the old days when they raced against their neighbors.

Then the guy that began this thread can stay home and bet on those raindrops sliding down his window.