Monday, December 16, 2019
We had our two runners last week. Mixed results. Hidden Pearl ran a very nice race at Chelmsford on Thursday evening: second, beaten a neck by the 1/5 favourite. Das Kapital wasn't so good at Newcastle on Saturday, finishing midfield. He had run moderately on his only previous try on the AW, at Chelmsford two starts previously; but he had run a very nice race since then on heavy ground at Yarmouth, looked to be in good form and was now eligible for 0-50 company, so I thought that it was worth having a go. It didn't work out and he clearly isn't as good on the AW, but it was a pleasant outing (albeit a very long day indeed and an expensive one) despite the disappointment of the race.
Hidden Pearl's run was much more pleasing. I'd had a sneaky suspicion that she might give the favourite something to think about, and she certainly did that, only losing out in the final strides. She ran competitively and genuinely, so I hope that it's justifiable to think that she can give us plenty to look forward to. I won't get carried away, though: it was a very weak race and a slowly-run one in which we were flattered by being ridden so well (by Sophie Ralston). But there were enough positives for me to be very heartened.
She will find it tougher next time as we won't find a race with as little depth again for a long while, but we and she shall keep trying. It'll probably have to be a handicap next time, possibly at Wolverhampton on 27th December. If so, that'll be our next runner. It can be slightly galling to come so close to winning and not win, but in this case it was very easy to swallow. When you're against a 1/5 shot, even if you half-think that you have a chance, you don't go there seriously expecting to win; and when the horse is ridden as well as she was and totally given the run of the race, there's no element of 'If only ...'.
Aside from that, the debate about the changes to the distribution of apprentices' fees continues to rumble on, but hopefully that'll be a thing of the past shortly, at which point we'll start wondering what all the fuss was about. I haven't got anything to add to my comments on the subject in the last chapter, except to reiterate that those who weren't playing the game made these changes inevitable, and that this really is a storm in a tea-cup. I almost wish that I was vexed on the subject - in the sense that if I had so little to worry about that I was worrying about this, then I really would be living an idyllic existence - but I'm not.
A glimmer of hope on a rainy night in Chelmsford
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hi John, with respect i don't think the apprentice issue is a storm in a tea cup, now i agree that some trainers have not been playing by the rules and therefore change is needed, but for the BHA/PJA not to take the trainers with them on this is a mistake, when a trainer as respected as Andrew Balding is saying he won't take on any trainees/future apprentices {he is not the only one saying this} there are long term serious consequences for the industry. For everyone of those people Andrew listed as having started with him & had their first rides for him, I would guess there were at least 10 more per person who started with Andrew and didn't make it to the track, a lot of them will still be in racing in some capacity, everyone in racing needs to start somewhere, if someone rang me for a job and said they have been with A Balding for the last 3 years, that would be the only reference i would need {you know they would have had a good grounding}, Andrew says he keeps 10 horses in training just for the youngsters to ride, there is a huge cost involved in this as you will know, I know from my own experience that contrary to what has been said in the press having an apprentice is an overall loss for the business not a net gain, what is being proposed will be an almost total loss as opposed to a minimal one "IF" your apprentice manages to do well. So i too will retire the 2 horses that I keep especially for apprentices to ride and stop taking on youngsters looking for rides after the 2 people i have commited to now have finished their apprenticeship. I personally think this is very sad and think long term the changes proposed will result in fewer young people being given a chance which is very bad for our industry, all because the BHA/PJA couldn't find a way to take the trainers with them with the changes instead of imposing something on them that will be bad for all parties. Best regards Stuart
Fair point, Stuart. Storm in a tea-cup is probably the wrong phrase. But from the point of view of any trainer who has an apprentice who is not among the handful of leading apprentices, it's not much of an issue at all because receiving 50% of the income and paying 50% of the expenses is no better than receiving 20% of the income and paying 0% of the expenses. Merely just the valet's fee being paid by the apprentice is a big saving the for the trainer: currently the trainer receives 50% of the riding fee once the valet's fee has been deducted, so making it 20% of the fee before the valet's fee comes out means that the reduction is significantly less than it appears at first glance to be. And I would imagine that under the new system, most trainers won't pay the apprentice for time which he/she he takes off for outside rides, once he/she used up his/her holiday and lieu day allocation, whereas up to now one would hope that everyone has been paying their apprentices a full week's wages, irrespective of how much time the apprentice takes off. In my opinion, Andrew would be silly if he stops having apprentices: he has first-class staff and plenty of them, and that is because talented young riders want to join his stable. He will find recruitment a lot harder if he no longer offers the perk to youngsters of providing an opening into race-riding. The sad thing about all this, though, is that apprentices in general will be the primary losers, not least because it will cost them so much money. You'll find now that a southern-based apprentice who is offered an outside ride at, say, Newcastle probably won't take it unless he/she is independently wealthy as doing so would be too expensive. Once he/she bought his/her train ticket, lost a day's wages and paid his/her valet, he/she will end up with a big loss on the day. They'll only start making money when (if) they start doing very well, and will no longer have the trainer to subsidise them up to that point; and it will only be the ones from wealthy families who will be able to afford to get to that point. You see it with jockeys that are only getting a handful of rides: they aren't covering their costs by doing so so they relinquish their license. It's sad that many apprentices will find themselves in that position at the outset.
That is not the case John,the trainer is still liable to pay the Apprentice a full wage under the new system, I think you like most people you are focusing on the apprentices that are getting regular rides, the biggest cost to the trainers in having apprentices lies with getting them to a point where they are suitable to get outside rides, years of training, usually riding horses kept primarily for them to ride, the balance goes back the other way once the apprentice starts getting outside rides but wont cover the initial costs unless they are very successful.
why would Andrew want to employ a lot of young people with all the difficulties that entails, when he is a big enough stable to attract high class fully skilled staff like most of the other big stables.
I agree with your last points that the apprentices will be the long term losers, as I sad all this acrimony just because the BHA/PJA couldn't take the NTF with them on these changes when all thought something needed to be done. all the trainers who have apprentices have been portrayed as criminals stealing 10's 0f 1000's of £ from their poor apprentices, as you say its sad for the industry that someone as good as Andrew will not take on these youngsters anymore.
best regards Stuart
Good to see the Powers that be agreed with your take on the Sandown race
Post a Comment