Final Furlong Forum
Final Furlong
Nov. 25, 2021 2:53am

Final Furlong Forum - Sale Prices?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 25, 2017, 06:53:44 AM

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 2153 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!
rainee
Trainer
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 666
Stable Name: Rainee Thoroughbreds


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: December 26, 2009, 11:19:50 PM »

I know the game is not meant to be fair I just mean if you put less horses in the game wide auction than there are players in the game most people aren't going to get one. I know that the bidding thing is obvious, I just mean that even if 30 players get their 5 and no one elase gets one at least people could have had one. I know that we all miss out on things we cannot afford but most of the horses in the auctions on day one and two go for $1k each. So if it is a game run auction with 150 horses in it some will get 5 some will get none but at lease there is the opportunity at the start for all to get a chance at one.

And there are horses owned by FF foaled in 2003 that are still listed as active racers. As it is FF currently runs 5200 races a year with a minimum of 6 slots in a race making a minimum of 31,200 slots open for racing. If we retired most of the older races owned by FF (183 foaled in 2005 and earlier - 420 foaled in 2006 and earlier), the younger more competitive racers (many of whom have game sires and dams, whose breeding rankings suffer due to a low number of starts earned by their FF owned offspring) would have a chance to run more often instead of a handful of times per year. Anyway if we retired the FF owned horses foaled in '05 or earlier (they will be aged 9-11 as of Jan. 1), each remaining FF horse would get 7-8 starts in the next year (and this is if we filled every SINGLE race with only FF horses). Now if we retired those born in '06 or earlier (Aged 8-11), each remaining horse would get roughly 8-9 starts. If you consider that those are without the coming FF 2yos figured in, that is quite a few starts.
   If you estimate that roughly two-thirds of those slots are filled with horses owned by stables other than FF (and this could be a larger percentage than what actually are owned by game stables), that is 10,400 slots still open for FF owned horses. If you just remove the '05 and earlier horses each remaining FF  horse (excluding 2yos) gets roughly 2-3 races per year while if you remove '06 and earlier it is about the same.
       So there are more than enough FF horses to fill races as it is if we remove the horses aged 8 and up from JUST the FF stable, it will solve the problem of less competitive horses and will also give other horses more of a chance to run and therefore if they are game-bred it will give their dams and sires a better value because those that are good will be solidified and those that are pretty terrible breeders can be phased out. And most stables that have horses aged 6-7 and up think of retirement due to the fact that most older horses cost more in entries and taxes in the long run than they bring in when they are 6 and up, so it is more economical to retire them. I may also get back to you with more precise information by age later. I just need to gather the information.

AS THE NUMBERS GO:
  • 452 horses born in 2006 and earlier ('03-'06) (making them 8yrs in 2014) are listed as active racers - 420 of those are owned by FF
  • 5,200 races/yr w/Min. 6 horses per race = 31,200 entries needed per year for minimum quota
  • With only FF horses in races the horses remaining w/o next year's 8-11yos and excluding '11 2yos, each FF horse would race only about 8-9 starts
  • When counting for the fact that only about 1/3 (possibly more like 1/4?) of the 31,200 min. entires are open to FF horses that cuts down the open slots for FF horses to 10,400 possible FF entries
  • That gives each remaining FF horse (excluding the aforementioned ages of racers) only about 2-3 starts per year
  • If only FF horses are retired when they reach age 8, it will create a more competetive environment in races that must be filled
  • Also-Keep in mind that if the FF owned racehorses are getting very few chances to race, mares and stallions that have amazing breeding potential but have foals owned only by FF, may not reach the same Breed Ranking as they might if more chances were available for them to run. If we retire 7yos their chances of starting will increase.
   
« Last Edit: December 27, 2009, 02:56:40 AM by rainee » Logged
Lilly of  Rainee Thoroughbreds
Located near the prestigious Saratoga.
Andy
Beta Testers
Exercise Rider
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 193
Stable Name: Gintara Lodge

View Profile
« Reply #16 on: December 27, 2009, 01:16:30 AM »

That's all good but you just forgot one thing, FF horses only race when the spaces are empty, so they aren't denying any other horse a chance of racing.

btw - how many 8 year olds are still in the game  ???
Logged
Once is a mistake, twice is stupidity!
rainee
Trainer
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 666
Stable Name: Rainee Thoroughbreds


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: December 27, 2009, 02:42:49 AM »

If you read my whole post I took into account that only about 1/3 (probably a little less) of the post positions are open to FF racers. I understand how the FF horses are used to fill races to a minimum of 6 horses and my calculations are simply for 6 horse races, I was simply countering your argument that
Quote
"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."
The math clearly shows that there are plenty of FF owned horses to fill races without the horses ages 8 to 11 (note these ages are as of Jan 1 2014 due to the game being within 1 week of the new year). And owned by FF there are 406 horses of racing status aged 8 to 11. Outside of the FF stable there are an additional 32 horses of racing status aged 8 to 11.

NOTE: I was reading through my previous post and it does get hard to read due to the amount of information packed into such small letters (I went cross eyed myself.) so I will edit it and make it into bullets. And bullet the numbers so they're easy to find.
Logged
Lilly of  Rainee Thoroughbreds
Located near the prestigious Saratoga.
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,692
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: December 27, 2009, 02:49:19 AM »

FF horses existing or not existing is besides the issue. Yes, adding created horses dilutes the game population and potentially decreases the value of horses in general, but most of FF's horses are in-game ones.

I could stop breeding FF's broodmares every year (and, in fact, have barely bred ay this year due to lack of time), but then we'd have no horses available to auction.

FF horses are supposed to retie/be sold at age 7, I'll make sure that happens this year (since it apparently didn't happen for 2013).

Either way, that doesn't solve the issue that was originally brought up, which is that members are pricing their own horses badly.
Logged
Nan
Guest
« Reply #19 on: December 27, 2009, 03:00:47 AM »

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.

I agree. I'm fine with the idea of a listing fee. However, I'd prefer that you be allowed to have a horse on the page for a month before it gets taken down.
Logged
rainee
Trainer
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 666
Stable Name: Rainee Thoroughbreds


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: December 27, 2009, 03:09:29 AM »

Well could we remove the number of FF owned created mares that have not proven themselves?

I notice that many of the highly overpriced are owned by smaller and newer stables, the ones that don't last in the long term. I'm not really sure how to solve that problem. It may be the fact that we have so many good horses? Over-breeding? Lackluster broodstock being bred to high quality stallions so one can turn a profit? I think its really just FF's economic cycle. The only way that you can raise prices of VERY good horses is to make their bloodline less...available? yet there is no surefire way to drive down prices of those that are overpriced though. There will always be those horses whose prices make you chuckle simply because they are so high and they sit there for ages. But there are people that pay those prices, simply because they don't know or are willing to take a chance. The idea of a time limit would be the best idea for the time being. Personally I've had horses sit on the saleboard anywhere from a couple of hours to weeks and still sell. So I agree with Nan. A month sounds good to me. And a listing fee is fair.
Logged
Lilly of  Rainee Thoroughbreds
Located near the prestigious Saratoga.
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,692
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: December 27, 2009, 06:32:42 PM »

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.

Well, this would be replacing the flat 5% tax you pay at year-end when the horse sells. However, the listing fee could be 2% rather than 3%...that way you can list the horse 2x and still pay less than you would have with the 5% sales tax, but any more than that and you start overpaying because you priced your horse incorrectly.

There's also nothing preventing people from posting a generic "This horse is available, let me know what you'd offer" post on the forum, which some stables have done.
Logged
conurexchick
Guest
« Reply #22 on: December 27, 2009, 08:34:01 PM »

I have noticed horses over priced, but I feel that same way as already stated, that if they're over priced than they won't sell.  People will either realize their horses are over priced and change it, or just be stuck with the horse.  If someone feels an unproven filly is worth 50k than let them pay 50k.  If you don't feel the filly is worth 50k than don't buy her or message the owner offering something you feel is more reasonable.  I just don't think there's really a code to solve this issue.  This is part of what makes the game interesting and challenging, for me anyways.

Maybe there could be a guide, or way to estimate a horse's value?  Just to get a range, not an exact price obviously and just merely a suggestion, you wouldn't have to abide by it.  Kinda like when you appraise a house? Not exactly a code, but just something a person could use to estimate a horse's worth?  For people like myself who don't know much about horses, pricing can be harder than those that know horses/racing and more in depth about the game.  I mean I know there was the suggestion about basing price on a horse's earnings, but that can be hard if the horse is just two years old and only had 3 starts.  I feel something like this will be a better way to try and get people to give more fair and accurate prices than adding or changing the fees involved in selling a horse. 


Logged
Dawn
Guest
« Reply #23 on: December 28, 2009, 02:20:03 PM »

I have an auction going right now... I use a base price system to price my auction horses...

Broodmares I price at a flat $75,000 (this is for unproven mares) and add the price of the stud fee if they are bred...Race horses are based on how well they are doing... usually not more than $50,000...

to date the races horses are the only ones who have sold... 2 2 yo geldings that have placed... both fairly well bred... and no reseve have sold for $50K each... 2 2 yo fillies... reserved at $25K... one is placed the other a multi-winner... the placed filly sold for reserve... the multi winner sold for over $100K... none of the bred broodmares have reached reserve...

In my humble opinion... bred mares are well worth $75K... and the price of the stud fee... I loose by listing them $5K each... then again a 5% sales tax... bringing the price back down...

so the market is not supporting averaged price horses... people are not willing to spend like they did in the future... shipping cost and taxes cause us to be more carful on our spending...
Logged
BlueWolf
Guest
« Reply #24 on: January 03, 2010, 09:10:44 PM »

I know the game is not meant to be fair I just mean if you put less horses in the game wide auction than there are players in the game most people aren't going to get one. I know that the bidding thing is obvious, I just mean that even if 30 players get their 5 and no one elase gets one at least people could have had one. I know that we all miss out on things we cannot afford but most of the horses in the auctions on day one and two go for $1k each. So if it is a game run auction with 150 horses in it some will get 5 some will get none but at lease there is the opportunity at the start for all to get a chance at one.


A better solution to that would be to have a New Members only auction...
Logged
Nan
Guest
« Reply #25 on: January 03, 2010, 10:13:44 PM »

I know the game is not meant to be fair I just mean if you put less horses in the game wide auction than there are players in the game most people aren't going to get one. I know that the bidding thing is obvious, I just mean that even if 30 players get their 5 and no one elase gets one at least people could have had one. I know that we all miss out on things we cannot afford but most of the horses in the auctions on day one and two go for $1k each. So if it is a game run auction with 150 horses in it some will get 5 some will get none but at lease there is the opportunity at the start for all to get a chance at one.


A better solution to that would be to have a New Members only auction...

There was a newbie auction a few years back...Unfortunately, there was still angst, because some people didn't get any horses, some didn't get as many as they wanted, some didn't get the kind of horses they wanted, etc. So it created some hard feelings here and there.

Personally, I think that it would be a better solution to emphasize good buying habits/what to look for in a horse, and encouraging/reminding newbies that they can always approach larger stables for specific horses. Key word is specific, there. The fact that we don't see very many posts saying 'I want cheap horses!' is very good, after all. :) But, if you feel you need more horses for your stable, research your potential purchases/leases and don't be too scared to approach people with bids. I remember having to do it and it was scary, but I'm still alive, so I'm pretty sure anyone can do it, too. :)

So, basically, if what you see on the sales page doesn't interest you, or you find you're not hitting the auctions as much as you'd like to, but you still want horses -- you can still do your legwork and go shopping privately. There's nothing wrong with that, IMHO.
Logged
BlueWolf
Guest
« Reply #26 on: January 04, 2010, 01:14:27 AM »

You're completely right :) Private shopping got me my leg up in the game. It really is the way to go.
Logged
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,692
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: January 04, 2010, 01:30:59 AM »

If new members want horses they're welcome to buy one of the 646 geldings FF has for sale at the moment. ;) Granted, every one of those geldings is 7 years old, but still, they're also only $1,000.
Logged
Wolfhound
Beta Testers
Trainer
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 685
Stable Name: Darkwood Stables

View Profile
« Reply #28 on: January 04, 2010, 09:08:12 AM »

When I was a newbie I bought some of the older geldings. Some were past it but a couple were amazing and earned me quite a bit of money. And i had some fun racing them and learning more about how the game works . :)
Logged
Gwen

Darkwood Stables
Grace Littlef
Beta Testers
Race Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,299
Stable Name: Iron Spur Stables


Proud Rattie Mommy!!

View Profile
« Reply #29 on: January 24, 2010, 08:23:49 AM »

you could also come up with say a retirement home for handicapped kids and horses that meet certain qualifications(age,record,jockey comments from the past etc)could be donated (with a specified fee by Shanthi) to clear up some of the really older ,  retirees, And i dont mean oh here comes spring cleaning, i mean horses that in the real world would be the correct type for this.
Logged
WHEN GOD CREATED THE HORSE,HE SPOKE TO THE MAGNIFICENT CREATURE: I HAVE MADE THEE WITHOUT EQUAL, ALL THE TREASURE OF THIS EARTH LIE BETWEEN THY EYES.

Home of,Ch. Set It OffNew in the Studbarn-guest stallion-NCh.Irish Gold,our studs- ICH.Gilded Saint, NCH.Golden Text, NCh. Black Light II
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