Final Furlong Forum
Final Furlong
Nov. 21, 2021 4:23pm

Final Furlong Forum - Sale Prices?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 21, 2017, 08:23:26 PM

Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
Final Furlong Forum  |  General  |  Comments and Suggestions  |  Topic: Sale Prices?
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2  All Go Down Print
Author Topic: Sale Prices?  (Read 2145 times)
Chris
Trainer
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 408
Stable Name: Tall Oaks Farm

View Profile
« on: December 25, 2009, 01:03:23 AM »

I know the issue of how a horse should be priced has come up in the past but I feel the need to bring it up again (I won't name any names either so no worries of this becoming a argument). Now I know that selling horses is a fast way to earn some cash but personally I try to be moderate when figuring out at what price to sale a horse. In the past I've sold nice yearlings for a fraction (or even a third) of what a bigger stable would have asked for them but really is a 2yo who hasn't won any races, and has a created pedigree worth 75k? Or is a weanling with created lines worth 50k? Then there is the 2yo who has only won five grand but his sale tag is one hundred grand, even though his breeding is good I would advise the stable to lower it to under let's say twenty grand as a good estimate. I don't know about anyone else but I wouldn't throw away that high amount of cash on any horse, unless they were super nice breeding wise or had done something stellar this far in the breeding barn. I am not suggesting to the respective stables selling the horses not to sale them but just reduce their prices a bit. With prices like those, you're unlikely to sell the horse since most stables will buy pass the horse just by the amount you're asking for at the current time.
Anyway Shanthi, I apologize if this is a inappropriate topic but certain horses sale prices have bothered me lately.
Logged
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,692
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: December 25, 2009, 03:00:36 AM »

That's a fair argument you make, but besides not buying the horse, there's not much that can be done about it. Horses can be priced at whatever price the person chooses, and if someone chooses to pay that price, then it's a valid price.

What I would consider doing is unsetting the sale price if the horse "lingers" on the sales page, for, say, a week without selling. (This is assuming no modifications have been made to the horse's sale price.) Then at least you'd have to keep re-listing that horse for $100k (or whatever price) in order to keep it up on the sales page. May not help anything, but ideally it'd get people to think about why their $100k horse isn't selling.
Logged
spudly
Jockey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 209
Stable Name: Lochiedo Stables

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: December 25, 2009, 04:30:03 AM »

At the end of the day, if the price is too high, the horse won't sell. Simple

But, as the saying goes, "Everything is worth what the purchaser will pay for it"
Logged
Steve
Lochiedo Stables
"We are on the rise"


Standing at stud
Beau Esprit
Mintano
Guest
« Reply #3 on: December 25, 2009, 04:38:05 AM »

I personally tend to overprice some of my horses. Most of them I would be happy enough to keep so if they don't go for the price I listed after about 2 weeks I remove them or lower the price depending on if I've decided I like them enough to hang on or let go. I have noticed the overpriced create's, both racehorses and yearlings/weanlings and just skip over them. Eventually they either will sell or their owner will pull them or adjust the price. For whatever reason the FF economy seems to be on a downturn, a lot of horses have been going for much cheaper than I've seen since I started 5 years ago. Back then a horse wasn't on the sales page for more than a few minutes usually and even the grossly overpriced were sold insanely quickly. There was a big demand for horses then and it seems like at the moment we have more supply and less demand so the sales page is clogging up.

I do like the idea of a horse being removed from the sale list after a determined amount of time without selling.
Logged
Andy
Beta Testers
Exercise Rider
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 193
Stable Name: Gintara Lodge

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: December 25, 2009, 09:25:16 AM »

Shanthi - Is it possible for horses to be removed from the sales board after a certain period if it doesn't sell? Say like 2 weeks?

I only suggest this as it's a way to keep the 'sales' section free of clutter and refreshed, also it will force owners who are selling to reevaluate their sales price
Logged
Once is a mistake, twice is stupidity!
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,692
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: December 25, 2009, 03:43:10 PM »

Shanthi - Is it possible for horses to be removed from the sales board after a certain period if it doesn't sell? Say like 2 weeks?

I only suggest this as it's a way to keep the 'sales' section free of clutter and refreshed, also it will force owners who are selling to reevaluate their sales price

What I would consider doing is unsetting the sale price if the horse "lingers" on the sales page, for, say, a week without selling. (This is assuming no modifications have been made to the horse's sale price.) Then at least you'd have to keep re-listing that horse for $100k (or whatever price) in order to keep it up on the sales page. May not help anything, but ideally it'd get people to think about why their $100k horse isn't selling.
Logged
Wolfhound
Beta Testers
Trainer
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 685
Stable Name: Darkwood Stables

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: December 26, 2009, 09:57:16 AM »

would deeply agree with removing unsold horses after a set time, some seem to languish there for months!
I too remember how expensive and difficult to buy a new horse used to be, I had only my original 2 starter horses for ages, and eventually started writing begging letters to established stables to see if they would sell me any of their less successful horses, just so I'd have something to race! I did the same for broodmares too, as even the most ordinary broodmare would routinely sell for 100,000!
IMHO i think horses are too easy to come by now, I was glad of the redeemed horses and the claiming horses because it gave me the chance to get horses at a sensible price and leasing too, but I feel now that a reduction in the supply could be reduced a bit. Not so hard as it was but less easy than it is now. Hard to balance I know as it's impossible to tell what any given change will lead to until it has been run for some time.
My own feeling is to allow redeemed horses for your first year in the game as that is when you need new horses the most and have the least spare money. Reduce claiming races to eg one per month and reduce the number of horses available from FF auctions to say 75 or 100 and the number allowed to buy to 3. Auctions put 600 horses a year into the game which is a lot when there are only 150 stables most of which are breeding their own foals as well!
Buying or otherwise aquiring new Horses needs to be desirable but a little bit difficult. I found it an interesting aspect of the game once I got established (very difficult as a newbie) but not interesting now as I have too many horses and not enough money!
Logged
Gwen

Darkwood Stables
rainee
Trainer
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 666
Stable Name: Rainee Thoroughbreds


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: December 26, 2009, 02:01:01 PM »

Yes but if we only put 100 horses into each auction that doesnt even give everyone a horse, which seems unfair. Maybe we should just stop using  created lines. We have a ton of horses with in game lines. Maybe there could also be a retirement code of a horse of say about age 6 or 7 who has won/placed in less than 5 races or something. That could also get some stragglers out of there. Or maybe a trainer input that starts around the time that they are at the bottom of  their racing primes that says 'This horse has really lost their spark' or something. Could we also get rid of FF owned created yearlings, weanlings, racers (who have done nothing on the track), in order to make the market more competitive. Just a thought.

And now even though it is easy to get horses there are so many that you have to become a savvy buyer in order to get a good one.  ;)
Logged
Lilly of  Rainee Thoroughbreds
Located near the prestigious Saratoga.
Dawn
Guest
« Reply #8 on: December 26, 2009, 04:40:41 PM »

I set most of the horses for the foal auction... and except for maybe 10 horses of created lines... they were all bred ingame... this is showing us that there are fewer created horses being generated...

the other thing to consider is that most of the established stables that were here when I started (Storybook, Outlaws, Inc...) are no longer around... we have a large influx f newer stables... and the created horses are coming from those who are deleted from the game for inactivity...

I remember when horses in the select auction were just unatainable unless you had Millions to spend... now most are well within the reach of anybody who has budgeted for this auction...

There has always been a supply and demand for quality well bred horses... The one that are over priced do not sell...
Logged
Wolfhound
Beta Testers
Trainer
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 685
Stable Name: Darkwood Stables

View Profile
« Reply #9 on: December 26, 2009, 07:42:18 PM »

Yes but if we only put 100 horses into each auction that doesnt even give everyone a horse, which seems unfair.
Yes but not everyone gets one anyway. A lot of stables buy 4/5 horses from the auction so there is not enough for each stable to get one. thats why i suggested reducing the maximum number to buy to 3 per stable. at the last auction i put a small bid on 5 horses, just for the fun of it. I didn't really want or expect to get them. to my amazement I won four of them for 1,000 each, 3 of which were of game lines, nobody wanted them! As has previously been pointed out the select auction was someting you could only watch with amazement at the prices. I believe they were all sold this year, but last year I think the purchase limit per stable was raised towards the end as so many horses did not sell. It looks to me that this shows we have too many horses available for the number of stables. Don't suppose it matters too much in the end. If a stable can't sell a horse they can always retire it!
Logged
Gwen

Darkwood Stables
CricketHill
Beta Testers
Race Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,186
Stable Name: Cricket Hill

Cricket Hill: Established 2006

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: December 26, 2009, 07:57:45 PM »

Another thing to note, is that we're not maxed out at the 150 active stables.  We have 121 stables "active," so there's less competition than in previous years. 

Some horses did go unsold at this year's select auction.  Prices will fluctuate.  You'll still pay top dollar for a top quality horse--Strider went for several million.  Those less than that top-quality will fluctuate as the market sees fit.  I think it's good for people just starting out now; they can buy horses that are of better quality at a reasonable price, and not just because some established stable decides to cut them a deal. 

Yes, it sucks for the owners trying to sell horses--selling is no longer a sure-fire way to make a quick buck.

While I know Shanthi doesn't want to idiot-proof the game, I really take issue with seeing six- and seven-year-olds on the market who haven't brought a paycheck in for the last year.  These horses really shouldn't be up for sale, but should be retired instead.  I know people probably aren't going to like this idea, but what about a small "listing/advertising fee" (e.g. $500 or 1% of the asking price or something) every time a horse is listed for sale?  This would not only encourage people to retire horses that are really unsellable due to injury or age, as well as encourage people to NOT relist a horse that's not selling at the same price. 

Just a thought... Not that we need more fees, or anything.   ;)
Logged
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,692
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: December 26, 2009, 08:16:41 PM »

While I know Shanthi doesn't want to idiot-proof the game, I really take issue with seeing six- and seven-year-olds on the market who haven't brought a paycheck in for the last year.  These horses really shouldn't be up for sale, but should be retired instead.  I know people probably aren't going to like this idea, but what about a small "listing/advertising fee" (e.g. $500 or 1% of the asking price or something) every time a horse is listed for sale?  This would not only encourage people to retire horses that are really unsellable due to injury or age, as well as encourage people to NOT relist a horse that's not selling at the same price.  

Just a thought... Not that we need more fees, or anything.   ;)

Hm, that's not a bad idea. Actually, it could replace the sales tax on horses (or rather, pre-tax the sale when the horse is listed, not when the horse is sold).

So rather than paying 5% at year's end for the $3mil you took in selling horses, you pay, say, 3% of whatever sales price you select when you list the horse for sale. Once it sells, you pocket the sale money and you're done.

That benefits "good" sellers by reducing the amount of the purchase price that gets lost to taxes (3% instead of 5%). In turn, it penalizes people who keep putting their horses up for sale (this would have to be combined with the unlisting horses after they've been on the sales page too long, otherwise you could just keep your $500k maiden gelding up for years).

So if you put your unraced 2yo up for sale for $100,000, you pay $3,000 to do so. He doesn't sell for whatever time period (say, 1-2 weeks) and gets taken off the sales page. You relist him for $80,000, paying $2,400 to do so. Again, he doesn't sell. Then you list him for $50,000 (paying $1,500) and he finally sells. You paid $6,900 to get him to sell, but owe nothing more for year-end taxes. (Which, if you hadn't overpriced him to begin with, would've been $2,500. And if you'd listed him for the $50k sales price at the start, you would've paid the $1,500 once and not owed $2,500 at year-end.)

I guess the only issue with this is that if you're selling in order to make cash because you're broke, you may not be able to afford the 3% up-front fee. Perhaps waive it if the sales price is, say, $5,000 or less?
« Last Edit: December 26, 2009, 10:16:15 PM by Shanthi » Logged
Fleet Feet Thoroughbreds
Guest
« Reply #12 on: December 26, 2009, 09:55:40 PM »

I think that sounds like a really good idea.

Although I think the period a horse should be left on the sales board should be more like 2-3 weeks. I know I don't check the sales board that often, and other people might not log on for a week or two due to time constraints, so if we're going to get charged just for listing the horse I think there should be a suitable amount of time to make sure people saw the listing.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2009, 10:00:36 PM by Fleet Feet Thoroughbreds » Logged
Andy
Beta Testers
Exercise Rider
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 193
Stable Name: Gintara Lodge

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: December 26, 2009, 10:10:08 PM »

Yes but if we only put 100 horses into each auction that doesnt even give everyone a horse, which seems unfair. Maybe we should just stop using  created lines. We have a ton of horses with in game lines. Maybe there could also be a retirement code of a horse of say about age 6 or 7 who has won/placed in less than 5 races or something. That could also get some stragglers out of there. Or maybe a trainer input that starts around the time that they are at the bottom of  their racing primes that says 'This horse has really lost their spark' or something. Could we also get rid of FF owned created yearlings, weanlings, racers (who have done nothing on the track), in order to make the market more competitive. Just a thought.

And now even though it is easy to get horses there are so many that you have to become a savvy buyer in order to get a good one.  ;)

Rainee - the games not designed to be 'fair' just like in life sometimes we miss out on things we want or can't afford.

As for a retirement code, why would you want to take horses out of the game? A lot of races don't fill up now, removing some would only make it worse although your trainers comment for training is a good one.
Logged
Once is a mistake, twice is stupidity!
Andy
Beta Testers
Exercise Rider
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 193
Stable Name: Gintara Lodge

View Profile
« Reply #14 on: December 26, 2009, 10:17:56 PM »

While I know Shanthi doesn't want to idiot-proof the game, I really take issue with seeing six- and seven-year-olds on the market who haven't brought a paycheck in for the last year.  These horses really shouldn't be up for sale, but should be retired instead.  I know people probably aren't going to like this idea, but what about a small "listing/advertising fee" (e.g. $500 or 1% of the asking price or something) every time a horse is listed for sale?  This would not only encourage people to retire horses that are really unsellable due to injury or age, as well as encourage people to NOT relist a horse that's not selling at the same price. 

Just a thought... Not that we need more fees, or anything.   ;)

Hm, that's not a bad idea. Actually, it could replace the sales tax on horses (or rather, pre-tax the sale when the horse is listed, not when the horse is sold).

So rather than paying 5% at year's end for the $3mil you took in selling horses, you pay, say, 3% of whatever sales price you select when you list the horse for sale. Once it sells, you pocket the sale money and you're done.

That benefits "good" sellers by reducing the amount of the purchase price that gets lost to taxes (3% instead of 5%). In turn, it penalizes people who keep putting their horses up for sale (this would have to be combined with the unlisting horses after they've been on the sales page too long, otherwise you could just keep your $500k maiden gelding up for years).

So if you put your unraced 2yo up for sale for $100,000, you pay $3,000 to do so. He doesn't sell for whatever time period (say, 1-2 weeks) and gets taken off the sales page. You relist him for $80,000, paying $2,400 to do so. Again, he doesn't sell. Then you list him for $50,000 (paying $1,500) and he finally sells. You paid $6,900 to get him to sell, but owe nothing more for year-end taxes. (Which, if you hadn't overpriced him to begin with, would've only been $2,500.)

I guess the only issue with this is that if you're selling in order to make cash because you're broke, you may not be able to afford the 3% up-front fee. Perhaps waive it if the sales price is, say, $5,000 or less?

I think a better way would be to have a flat 'listing fee' of $1000 (could be higher for pricing a horse over $100k, say $2k?) then a 3% fee when the horse sells.

It's hard to know what a horse is worth, only the market will tell you and to be stung 3% everytime would be a bit tough imho.
Logged
Once is a mistake, twice is stupidity!
Pages: [1] 2  All Go Up Print 
Final Furlong Forum  |  General  |  Comments and Suggestions  |  Topic: Sale Prices? « previous next »
 
SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
Final Furlong Forum, Sale Prices? - Theme by Mustang Forums