Horse owners miss point of their dog acts

OWNERS who don't pay trainers should be reminded of the puppy analogy.

Peter Moody

OWNERS who don't pay trainers should be reminded of the puppy analogy.

You know, you get it for Christmas, all soft and fluffy and adorable, and by Easter, after the mutt has dug up the back lawn, you're leaving the front gate open at night.

A racehorse is also an ongoing commitment.

The bills don't end with the purchase cheque. Odds are your horse will cost more than it recoups. Accept this before you sign up.

Much has been said about trainers and owners since a group of trainers revealed the depth of their woes, and the depth of the debt, to the Herald Sun just over a week ago.

Trainers - and feed merchants and vets - told of crippling debts of up to $1 million.

Trainers most regarded as successful and buffered from the cash-flow crisis of non-paying owners said they were at their wit's end.

Young and small-time trainers said that unless they were given support - from Racing Victoria - they'd be out of business by Christmas.

One well known city trainer has liquidated his stables to fend off bankruptcy.

It's a dire situation with no clear solution, bar owners having a good look at their budget and a good look in the mirror.

Racing Victoria isn't exactly ducking and weaving but it is reluctant to agree to salvage plans that have been put to it.

The push from trainers is that Racing Victoria act in some way as debt collector against rogue owners who reckon paying for a horse is optional, like keeping a puppy beyond Easter.

Trainers would say RVL puts on the show and that trainers and horses are part of that show; that their cash-flow is vital to that show.

Trainers, with the guarded support of the Thoroughbred Racehorse Owners' Association, reckon the industry, whether RVL or whoever, should take credit card details of all owners and debit them when bills aren't paid.

The owners are on board with the trainers but don't appear to be singing exactly from the same song sheet.

Many owners, you'd suspect, would be aghast at the idea that some boffin in some racing department might rip a few grand from their credit card for a horse debt.

Trainers, you'd suspect, would be miffed at TROA's idea that owners who pay on time receive some sort of discount.

Racing Victoria steadfastly refuses to act as debt collector beyond a one-man department that exists to tackle non-payers.

One trainer described that department as a "feather duster".

RVL argues that trainers run their own business and it's up to them to sort their owners out, via contracts and good will.

RVL might say trainers who are owed money are no different than publicans or accountants owed money.

RVL says it is sympathetic to the plight of trainers but isn't signing any agreements just yet.

The RVL sentiment seems to be that if a trainer can't run a profitable business, then maybe the trainer should become someone else's foreman.

Bigger picture-wise there seems to be an industry desire to rein in trainer numbers; consolidate the big and medium stables, let market forces sort out the rest.

Trainer Jason Petch has received support from other trainers in his aggressive pitch to RVL for support, but some have portrayed the small scale trainer as someone who simply can't run a profitable business.

But any trainer, from Petch to Peter Snowden, is entitled to payment, just like the electricity company.

Training racehorses isn't quite like running any other business.

Most trainers place the welfare of the animal above their own. The trainer might eat the wallpaper but the horse, the owner's horse, will not go hungry.

Owners who don't pay are abusing the good will of this unique relationship. Owners know most trainers, in a very competitive environment, would cling on to a half paid-up horse because a horse that owes is better than an empty box.

The gist, perhaps, is that owners must think long and hard about whether they can afford these animals.

Even the syndicate five percenters, usually the less affluent, seduced by the notion that anyone can own part of a horse in the Sport of Kings, can fork out over $200 a month that they really can't afford.

Especially when they've just agreed to another five per cent of another money muncher.

Tough decisions must be made.

Maybe the puppy stays and the horse goes.

Or they both go and the kids get an iPad.