Chicago Barn to Wire
Home | News | Bloggers | Forums | Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Contact Us | Search


December 22, 2014, 12:24:28 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you don't remember your password, email me.

New  registration procedures -- Some ISPs have been bouncing the verification emails.  Please email me to be activated or if you have any problems.  Click Contact Us above.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Jockey Price Change  (Read 5958 times)
nwaryas
Guest

« on: July 20, 2007, 05:34:55 PM »

Did you get that letter in the mail about the increase of jockey's fee in Illinois?
« Last Edit: July 21, 2007, 10:39:18 AM by nwaryas » Report to moderator   Logged
BeauNarro
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2801

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.....


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1 on: July 20, 2007, 08:54:25 PM »

yes I did.

I'm not racing here in Illinois this year, and I might not next year either because of this.
Report to moderator   Logged
Jim C
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1403




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: July 20, 2007, 10:13:57 PM »

Beau,
It may not matter where you race, by this time next year the jock fees everywhere will be going up. They are using Illinois as a test case as there is no oversight, law, or governing body that sets jock fees. So they are trying to raise them here figuring it will be the toughest place to do so. if they are successful they will move on to the easier states and raise their fees.

I know they have been after the ITHA to approve the raise but the ITHA has no standing or power to do so as they cannot tell the owners how to spend their money and there is nothing in the bylaws that gives them the power to approve any raise.

My suggestion to the jocks was to just print up a riding price list for what they each want to ride for, so if you want the top jock you pay for him, but if you want someone who would ride for less then you can hire him at a better price. Why should each jock get the same fee anyway? This way some of the less known jocks may get more mounts because they will ride for less then some of the other jocks.
Report to moderator   Logged
edwarren
Guest

« Reply #3 on: July 21, 2007, 02:39:56 AM »

Beau,
It may not matter where you race, by this time next year the jock fees everywhere will be going up. They are using Illinois as a test case as there is no oversight, law, or governing body that sets jock fees. So they are trying to raise them here figuring it will be the toughest place to do so. if they are successful they will move on to the easier states and raise their fees.

I know they have been after the ITHA to approve the raise but the ITHA has no standing or power to do so as they cannot tell the owners how to spend their money and there is nothing in the bylaws that gives them the power to approve any raise.

My suggestion to the jocks was to just print up a riding price list for what they each want to ride for, so if you want the top jock you pay for him, but if you want someone who would ride for less then you can hire him at a better price. Why should each jock get the same fee anyway? This way some of the less known jocks may get more mounts because they will ride for less then some of the other jocks.

Putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. This will only make sense if you view it in a ***-eyed sort of way. Frequently, you will  see (and hear) this sort of thing happen when prices are rising. Jim C knows this.

Jim, on a different note, how do you know IL is a test case?  I have never read or heard this mentioned.

Respectfully,
Ed.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2007, 07:47:50 AM by edwarren » Report to moderator   Logged
nwaryas
Guest

« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2007, 03:14:07 AM »

Pay the jock more money after he wins your race beside the 10% he gets. This is just like greyhound, feed them little until they win and then feed them a good helping.

We will see people leaving horse racing just to race dogs. What has this society gotten up to?
Report to moderator   Logged
sailchgo
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 65




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2007, 06:09:12 AM »

are any of the jock's actully asking for the bigger fee at the time of the mount?  The Letter says it needs to be negotiated ride by ride
Report to moderator   Logged
ABBY
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 256




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: July 21, 2007, 07:50:38 AM »

Did you get that letter in the mail about the increase of jockey's fee in Illinois?
   Just another way to screw the owner out of business. I do see the top jocks aren't riding much. Is this because of Fire's lawsuit for backpay? Another good idea- maybe we don't need them, just load the horse and they can find the finish line. It's all so stupid.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #7 on: July 21, 2007, 08:54:08 AM »

My suggestion to the jocks was to just print up a riding price list for what they each want to ride for, so if you want the top jock you pay for him, but if you want someone who would ride for less then you can hire him at a better price. Why should each jock get the same fee anyway? This way some of the less known jocks may get more mounts because they will ride for less then some of the other jocks.

I agree with that. If you want Rene Douglas, pay the Rene Douglas asking price. If you're happy with someone else who charges less, that's fine, too. Everyone getting paid the same is communist. If they all get together and make the same price schedule, we could sue them for price fixing.  Cheesy

I'd also like to see a schedule whereby the jock pays the owner if he gives a horse a bonehead ride, but that won't happen.

Jim C., where is the current mount fee schedule spelled out? Is it in State law, is it a track rule, or is it currently an agreement between horsemen and riders? I do think some sort of increase in the non-winning mount prices is probably in order. It's been where it is now for a long time. However, I don't agree with the winning riders also getting a flat fee on top of their percentage. The jocks should also be subject to the vagaries of the purse levels. They are part of the industry just like everyone else.

We will see people leaving horse racing just to race dogs. What has this society gotten up to?


Not in Illinois. It's illegal.
Report to moderator   Logged
edwarren
Guest

« Reply #8 on: July 21, 2007, 09:42:39 AM »

Short-sighted, Terry. The best jocks won't be in the market, possibly except for the sake of appearances. They will ride on contract for the biggest operators and kick back to Manley and Jackson, et al, who wouldn't be involved except for the fact that this is HUGE.

« Last Edit: July 21, 2007, 12:43:13 PM by edwarren » Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #9 on: July 21, 2007, 09:56:14 AM »

Short-sighted, Terry. The best jocks won't be in the market, possibly except for the sake of appearances. They will ride on contract for the biggest operators and kick back to Manley and Jackson, et al and perhaps Solis, who wouldn't be involved except for the fact that this is HUGE.

So what? All the jocks pick and choose who they ride for anyhow. You don't just offer up $45 and get whoever you want. If they can work a sweet deal to get on contract, or can command $500 a ride, more power to them. That's free enterprise. I just don't happen to think every one of them at the track should be priced the same, because they have different talents. I also don't think the ones that win or place and take 10% right off the top of the owner's share should get a set mount fee to boot - unless that share might happen to be less than the agreed upon mount fee.   
Report to moderator   Logged
edwarren
Guest

« Reply #10 on: July 21, 2007, 09:58:47 AM »

Kicking back to a syndicate is free enterprise?  Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #11 on: July 21, 2007, 10:03:04 AM »

Kicking back to a syndicate is free enterprise?  Roll Eyes

Kicking back is not part of the official proposal or lawsuit. That's your questionable addition to the discussion.
Report to moderator   Logged
edwarren
Guest

« Reply #12 on: July 21, 2007, 10:08:27 AM »

I agree with that. If you want Rene Douglas, pay the Rene Douglas asking price. If you're happy with someone else who charges less, that's fine, too. Everyone getting paid the same is communist. If they all get together and make the same price schedule, we could sue them for price fixing.  Cheesy


This is the first I've heard all jocks make the same.  Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
edwarren
Guest

« Reply #13 on: July 21, 2007, 10:11:22 AM »

I agree with that. If you want Rene Douglas, pay the Rene Douglas asking price. If you're happy with someone else who charges less, that's fine, too. Everyone getting paid the same is communist. If they all get together and make the same price schedule, we could sue them for price fixing.  Cheesy


This is the first I've heard racing is communist, mein herr. You're a groundbreaker.

Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #14 on: July 21, 2007, 10:17:42 AM »

This is the first I've heard all jocks make the same.  Roll Eyes

Maybe you should read the facts of this case so you have some clue what you're talking about.

http://www.itharacing.com/NewsArchive/2007-07-18JockeySuitNotice.pdf
Report to moderator   Logged
edwarren
Guest

« Reply #15 on: July 21, 2007, 10:32:15 AM »

The first thing I find puzzling is: the itha says it does not enter into contracts so how can it "monitor and defend" this issue if it is not a party to the contract?

I'll continue after your resonse.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #16 on: July 21, 2007, 10:40:27 AM »

The first thing I find puzzling is: the itha says it does not enter into contracts so how can it "monitor and defend" this issue if it is not a party to the contract?

I'll continue after your resonse.

I don't know the answer to why the ITHA is included in the lawsuit. You would have to ask the jockeys that. That alone explains the hiring of a lawyer to defend. For the ITHA to monitor a lawsuit that names it and affects its members is understandable. That's one of the reasons the ITHA (formerly Horsemen's Benevolent and PROTECTIVE Association) exists.
Report to moderator   Logged
Earl Sande
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2165




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: July 21, 2007, 10:49:47 AM »

If you think racing would be better off with negotiated fees, I think you need to think about it some more. Call it communism, but I think it's in the best interests of everyone to have set fees and to have the horsemen's bookkeeper handle the payments. Otherwise chaos would reign.
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!
Report to moderator   Logged
edwarren
Guest

« Reply #18 on: July 21, 2007, 10:54:42 AM »

I don't know the answer to why the ITHA is included in the lawsuit. You would have to ask the jockeys that.

Why ask the jockeys?

That alone explains the hiring of a lawyer to defend.

Objection, subjective.

I don't know the answer to why the ITHA is included in the lawsuit. You would have to ask the jockeys that. That alone explains the hiring of a lawyer to defend. For the ITHA to monitor a lawsuit that names it and affects its members is understandable. That's one of the reasons the ITHA (formerly Horsemen's Benevolent and PROTECTIVE Association) exists.

Why are they named in the suit if they are not a party to the contract?


Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #19 on: July 21, 2007, 11:02:08 AM »

Why ask the jockeys?

Because they filed the lawsuit, and I don't know.

Do you have anything of substance to add to any discussion today?
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #20 on: July 21, 2007, 11:07:43 AM »

If you think racing would be better off with negotiated fees, I think you need to think about it some more. Call it communism, but I think it's in the best interests of everyone to have set fees and to have the horsemen's bookkeeper handle the payments. Otherwise chaos would reign.

You are probably right, though when they're litigating for a 100% increase in mount fees, PLUS mount fees in addition to percent of purses won, I think it's time to start looking in other directions. 100 horses a day, 5 days a week, say averaging the middle $55 increase, that's a lot of additional money taken away from owners.

The second proposed schedule is a little more realistic IMHO, but that's not the one being litigated. I could live with it, but I don't send out two or three horses a day like some owners.
Report to moderator   Logged
edwarren
Guest

« Reply #21 on: July 21, 2007, 11:16:18 AM »

For the purpose of this mock court and apparently from your own statements any reasonable person would conclude you "elected" to advance the side of the plaintiff.

Until you answer the lawsuit is meaningless. Taking up the courts time. I move to dismiss.

Incidently, other than inflammatory and unfounded remarks, it's you whom has shown nothing. No admonishments us over substance, Sieur B. Obection overruled.

---------

Maybe I'll withdraw the motion to dismiss as I said I would continue, but I'll need a continuance.

Granted.

-------

While I posted I noticed you answered Sandes post. I'll look at that later.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #22 on: July 21, 2007, 11:26:01 AM »

For the purpose of this mock court and apparently from your own statements any reasonable person would conclude you "elected" to advance the side of the plaintiff.

Any reasonable person would conclude that I'm taking the side of the jockeys?

If you light bulb say so.

Wow.
Report to moderator   Logged
edwarren
Guest

« Reply #23 on: July 21, 2007, 11:28:47 AM »

Any reasonable person would conclude that I'm taking the side of the jockeys?

If you light bulb say so.

Wow.

Specious.
Report to moderator   Logged
edwarren
Guest

« Reply #24 on: July 21, 2007, 11:29:06 AM »

Maybe you should read the facts of this case so you have some clue what you're talking about.

http://www.itharacing.com/NewsArchive/2007-07-18JockeySuitNotice.pdf

I don't see a lawsuit here. All I see is a memo. Why are you showing me a memo and telling me it's a lawsuit?
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.116 seconds with 16 queries.

Home
Upcoming events
Breeders' Cup
Horse slaughter in IL
Racing TV schedule
News Updates
Legislation

Galloping Out

Previous stories

Arlington
Balmoral
Hawthorne
Maywood
Chicago Sun-Times
Chicago Tribune
Blood-Horse
Daily Racing Form
Thoroughbred Times
Harness Link
Illinois Racing Board

 

2014

Breeders' Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2013

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2012

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

More ebay items

 

Home | News Updates | Bloggers | Forums | Search
Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Advertising | Contact Us

Copyright © 2000-2014 Chicago Barn to Wire. All rights reserved.
Privacy policy