Hi halo
Plenty of stallions are syndicated and offered "cheap"...most are "cheap" stallions and would be impossible to fully syndicate no matter how many seasons were attached to each share...junk is junk.
Furthermore (and as you probably know)...most stallions today are syndicated into 50 shares +- (an example of a 60 share stallion is Smarty Jones).
I am confident you also know that just about every stallion has a bonus draw...or a "pool" of extras (although the SEC doesn't like the word pool). You make it sound like bonus seasons connected to stallion "shares" may be something out of the norm...they are not...as long as the stallion has the libido, fertility and recuperative qualities to handle it...and Full Mandate certainly does.
One aspect of Full Mandate that distinguishes him (from many) is that he was GREAT VALUE (when syndicated)...and he has lots of appeal. When was the last time that a $3.2 million dollar yearling...that became a black type winner...and that has the physical qualities (and pedigree) of FM was syndicated for a gross price of $500,000? Less than 1/6 his original purchase price? I can't recall one.
The word "cheap" (as you use it) can carry a very negative connotation (as you know). But reality is (as you also know) that something can be "cheap" at a million dollars...conversely something can be expensive at $5,000...it's all about VALUE.
Full Mandate was (and is) incredible VALUE...and as you probably also know...many many seasons were sold for a SOLID $5,000.
Best to you
Respectfully
Which young stallions have genuine MARKET APPEAL ?
Moderators: Roguelet, WaveMaster, madelyn
FOS, I wish you would read what I write, instead of how you want to interpret what I write. I didnt say Full Mandate was "cheap". I said the shares were offered cheaply. I could have easily said "for a discounted amount" or "for a very valued approach". Read it how ever you want, I think that offering shares for $10,000 which offer 2 breedings per year, and to have the stallion stand for $5000, make the shares cheap at the price. That isnt a bad thing, its a good thing for the buyers of the shares. And I said nothing about bonus seasons or a bonus pool. I said each share holder has 2 breedings per year. Those arent bonus seasons, those are what the share holders are entitled to, each year.
I dont know the particulars of the Smarty Jones syndicate, but I am fairly confident that they didnt offer 2 seasons per year per syndicate share.
Hartley Derenzo is very aggressive in their approach to getting a good amount of mares to their young stallions before their foals get to the races. Very few stallions have the same dollar value once their foals start running, so with their syndications, they are allowing syndicate members to maximize their investment without having to worry too much how the foals run. If they run lights out the first year, everyone is sitting on a goldmine. If they dont, and odds are they wont, everyone has still made a reasonable investment and, if they used their shares wisely, made a reasonable amount of money.
I dont know the particulars of the Smarty Jones syndicate, but I am fairly confident that they didnt offer 2 seasons per year per syndicate share.
Hartley Derenzo is very aggressive in their approach to getting a good amount of mares to their young stallions before their foals get to the races. Very few stallions have the same dollar value once their foals start running, so with their syndications, they are allowing syndicate members to maximize their investment without having to worry too much how the foals run. If they run lights out the first year, everyone is sitting on a goldmine. If they dont, and odds are they wont, everyone has still made a reasonable investment and, if they used their shares wisely, made a reasonable amount of money.
Hi halo
I read what you wrote (in your original post Nov 2, 2004 11:38 AM) and I obviously interpreted it differently than you apparently intended. Maybe it's your writing style that needs some improvement...not my reading comprehension skills.
Consider this...You used the word "cheap"...but the word "cheap" (to my way of thinking) often carries a negative connotation. If there is no negative connotation intended...the word "inexpensive" leaves little room for negative interpretation.
Since I was unsure of your intention (when you used the word "cheap"), I responded with the following...and I quote..."The word "cheap" (as you use it) can carry a very negative connotation (as you know)."
Don't take it as a disrespectful challenge to you...but rather a response to your commentary that was unclear to me and obviously open to interpretation.
Even in your most recent post (Nov 3, 2004 11:35 AM) you wrote..."FOS, I wish you would read what I write, instead of how you want to interpret what I write. I didnt say Full Mandate was "cheap". I said the shares were offered cheaply."
halo...in your original post you DID NOT say the shares were "offered cheaply" (although maybe that's what you intended)...you referenced the shares (in your original post) as "extremely cheap"...and that's what I responded to.
Regardless of the semantics, intent or interpretation...your comments and opinions are always appreciated...but if you expect a different type of response...I recommend you leave less room for interpretation.
halo...you wrote "And I said nothing about bonus seasons or a bonus pool. I said each share holder has 2 breedings per year. Those arent bonus seasons, those are what the share holders are entitled to, each year."
halo...the fact is that shares were sold to parties that intended to breed two mares per year...but that is only through the 2006 breeding season...subsequent to that time each share (fractional interest) is entitled to one nomination for each breeding season (in the northern hemisphere).
At that time the determination will be made whether BONUS nominations will be allocated and/or BONUS nominations will be sold by the manager (the proceeds of which would be shared on a pro-rata basis by the shareholders)...of course all of this depends on the ability of the stallion to cover an excess book.
The Full Mandate syndication is something very unique in that the stallion was syndicated at a fraction of his true worth...and the seasons were priced at a level where they were a very hot commodity at $5,000...and I know of no "deals"/discounts.
Anyway you or I describe it he was an incredible buy...a rare value. I understand there is an offer now (to buy shares) at the $22k level...and I have heard of no one willing to sell. A very rare winner-of-a-syndication (an opportunity for profit right-off-the-bat). The Full Mandate syndication was one of the best I have seen or heard of in years.
Conversely...the Smarty Jones syndication is the most ridiculously overpriced that I have seen in a long time. At $650,000 per share and a syndicate consisting of 60 fractional interests...the numbers are absurd...despite shares being offered with a "bonus" ("extra" or whatever you want to call it) assigned every other year (subject of course to the normal caveats).
Best to you always.
Respectfully
I read what you wrote (in your original post Nov 2, 2004 11:38 AM) and I obviously interpreted it differently than you apparently intended. Maybe it's your writing style that needs some improvement...not my reading comprehension skills.
Consider this...You used the word "cheap"...but the word "cheap" (to my way of thinking) often carries a negative connotation. If there is no negative connotation intended...the word "inexpensive" leaves little room for negative interpretation.
Since I was unsure of your intention (when you used the word "cheap"), I responded with the following...and I quote..."The word "cheap" (as you use it) can carry a very negative connotation (as you know)."
Don't take it as a disrespectful challenge to you...but rather a response to your commentary that was unclear to me and obviously open to interpretation.
Even in your most recent post (Nov 3, 2004 11:35 AM) you wrote..."FOS, I wish you would read what I write, instead of how you want to interpret what I write. I didnt say Full Mandate was "cheap". I said the shares were offered cheaply."
halo...in your original post you DID NOT say the shares were "offered cheaply" (although maybe that's what you intended)...you referenced the shares (in your original post) as "extremely cheap"...and that's what I responded to.
Regardless of the semantics, intent or interpretation...your comments and opinions are always appreciated...but if you expect a different type of response...I recommend you leave less room for interpretation.
halo...you wrote "And I said nothing about bonus seasons or a bonus pool. I said each share holder has 2 breedings per year. Those arent bonus seasons, those are what the share holders are entitled to, each year."
halo...the fact is that shares were sold to parties that intended to breed two mares per year...but that is only through the 2006 breeding season...subsequent to that time each share (fractional interest) is entitled to one nomination for each breeding season (in the northern hemisphere).
At that time the determination will be made whether BONUS nominations will be allocated and/or BONUS nominations will be sold by the manager (the proceeds of which would be shared on a pro-rata basis by the shareholders)...of course all of this depends on the ability of the stallion to cover an excess book.
The Full Mandate syndication is something very unique in that the stallion was syndicated at a fraction of his true worth...and the seasons were priced at a level where they were a very hot commodity at $5,000...and I know of no "deals"/discounts.
Anyway you or I describe it he was an incredible buy...a rare value. I understand there is an offer now (to buy shares) at the $22k level...and I have heard of no one willing to sell. A very rare winner-of-a-syndication (an opportunity for profit right-off-the-bat). The Full Mandate syndication was one of the best I have seen or heard of in years.
Conversely...the Smarty Jones syndication is the most ridiculously overpriced that I have seen in a long time. At $650,000 per share and a syndicate consisting of 60 fractional interests...the numbers are absurd...despite shares being offered with a "bonus" ("extra" or whatever you want to call it) assigned every other year (subject of course to the normal caveats).
Best to you always.
Respectfully
Hi ef
When race horses retire to stud...a new career begins. It's no longer about who gets to the finish line first...it's about whose offspring get to the finish line first.
There have been a abundance of GREAT stallions that had limited success at the race track and found superstardom in the breeding shed (examples: Danzig...Vice Regent...Kris S)...conversely many superstar race horses have had very limited success in the stallion ranks (examples: horse of the year Secretariat...horse of the year Favorite Trick...horse of the year Alysheba).
Great stallions come in all shapes and sizes...and from all racing levels.
With that in mind I agree with el camino...Full Mandate "looks better" to me than New Foundland does, regardless of their different accomplishments at the race track.
Although a minor stakes winner...Full Mandate looks like a classic-sire prospect to me...you might agree when you see him. Can his looks, pedigree and minor stakes winning ability (although he won at major tracks such as Keeneland and Churchill) translate to sire success?..only time will tell...but I think he is a great gamble...if you are a player.
His half brother New Foundland is a wonderful horse...but I find it difficult to become excited over yet another son of Storm Cat.
If you have an opportunity to see Full Mandate (A.P. Indy/Clear Mandate by Deputy Minister)...do it. He is truly special.
Respectfully
When race horses retire to stud...a new career begins. It's no longer about who gets to the finish line first...it's about whose offspring get to the finish line first.
There have been a abundance of GREAT stallions that had limited success at the race track and found superstardom in the breeding shed (examples: Danzig...Vice Regent...Kris S)...conversely many superstar race horses have had very limited success in the stallion ranks (examples: horse of the year Secretariat...horse of the year Favorite Trick...horse of the year Alysheba).
Great stallions come in all shapes and sizes...and from all racing levels.
With that in mind I agree with el camino...Full Mandate "looks better" to me than New Foundland does, regardless of their different accomplishments at the race track.
Although a minor stakes winner...Full Mandate looks like a classic-sire prospect to me...you might agree when you see him. Can his looks, pedigree and minor stakes winning ability (although he won at major tracks such as Keeneland and Churchill) translate to sire success?..only time will tell...but I think he is a great gamble...if you are a player.
His half brother New Foundland is a wonderful horse...but I find it difficult to become excited over yet another son of Storm Cat.
If you have an opportunity to see Full Mandate (A.P. Indy/Clear Mandate by Deputy Minister)...do it. He is truly special.
Respectfully
Re: Which young stallions have genuine MARKET APPEAL ?
FOS wrote:Hello guys
As the 2005 breeding season approaches...debating the question...Which young stallions have genuine MARKET APPEAL?" may give us an opportunity to discuss some horses that might be worthy of such a potentially valuable accolade...one which your breeding selections and sales offerings may actually benefit from.
This thread seems to have lost its focus. I am interested in the original thread. I am looking for information rather than trying to provide much, but here are a few of my opinions.
Jump Start 7500 even though he is breeding his 3rd crop
doneraille Court 15000
Yes Its True 25000 - good looking foals and a great 1st year; Will they run at 3?
Stroll 7500 or less I think - Claiborne stallion 1st crop - will be received well unless the buzz goes away from 1st crop stallions.
Someone mentioned a new Maryland stallion. In my experience no Md stallion's offspring sell well until they have proven themselves at the races.
Respectfully
Liberty,
Often too true about MD, but I think that is because MD doesn't get the hot stallion prospects and a lot of people are trying to breed commercially out of mares that aren't commercial quality. How well first year MD stallions sell depends on the farm, the stallion, what kind of mare the foal is out of, and it still needs to be a really good individual.
Most MD stallion prospects are not top flight. If they were, they would be standing in Kentucky. You need a mare with a strong page if you are going to try to sell a first year horse. It helps a lot if she's a stakes producer. I think the farm matters, too. Northview and Country Life seem to be best at promoting their newbies. Recent additions that sold well as first year horses are Partner's Hero, Lion Hearted, and Diamond. Opening Verse sold very well as a freshman. Not for Love had a big yearling and record two year old in La Salle Street. So it can happen if you have a good mare and an athletic individual.
The farm needs to do a good job of promoting the stallion and his foals to get them on the buyers radar.
Other stallions, like Malibu Moon, have had to earn respect to sell well because he didn't have the race record. I think he showed a lot of talent at the track in his two starts, but without the race record why should anybody pay much for yearlings from an unproven stallion?
Often too true about MD, but I think that is because MD doesn't get the hot stallion prospects and a lot of people are trying to breed commercially out of mares that aren't commercial quality. How well first year MD stallions sell depends on the farm, the stallion, what kind of mare the foal is out of, and it still needs to be a really good individual.
Most MD stallion prospects are not top flight. If they were, they would be standing in Kentucky. You need a mare with a strong page if you are going to try to sell a first year horse. It helps a lot if she's a stakes producer. I think the farm matters, too. Northview and Country Life seem to be best at promoting their newbies. Recent additions that sold well as first year horses are Partner's Hero, Lion Hearted, and Diamond. Opening Verse sold very well as a freshman. Not for Love had a big yearling and record two year old in La Salle Street. So it can happen if you have a good mare and an athletic individual.
The farm needs to do a good job of promoting the stallion and his foals to get them on the buyers radar.
Other stallions, like Malibu Moon, have had to earn respect to sell well because he didn't have the race record. I think he showed a lot of talent at the track in his two starts, but without the race record why should anybody pay much for yearlings from an unproven stallion?
I meant looks in the literal sense of the word. If they were the same price I would breed to Newfie but given the price difference I think Full Mandate is actually the better choice. Newfie was very very good, better than his brother, but he was not elite and not worth 15,000. I think A.P. Indy vs Storm Cat is toss up Except that the market is flooded with Storm Cat sons.
Hi Halo,
The number of breedings given to syndicate shareholders impacts according to their enthusiasm, ability and willingness to send mares to their stallion.
For Full Mandate to book over 150 mares means that every shareholder used both (assuming that they received 2 breedings) breedings and there were still an additional 50+ mares bred. That's extraordinary.
I think you'll find that most regional stallion syndicates who issue 2 breedings per share would be happy getting half of them used (50) and most are well under that number. Literally, syndicate members wait for someone else to prove their stallion.
Regards,
Pete
The number of breedings given to syndicate shareholders impacts according to their enthusiasm, ability and willingness to send mares to their stallion.
For Full Mandate to book over 150 mares means that every shareholder used both (assuming that they received 2 breedings) breedings and there were still an additional 50+ mares bred. That's extraordinary.
I think you'll find that most regional stallion syndicates who issue 2 breedings per share would be happy getting half of them used (50) and most are well under that number. Literally, syndicate members wait for someone else to prove their stallion.
Regards,
Pete
Kafwain- You have to like his chances especially vs the others within his stallion crop. Have not completed looking at the mares provided all first year sires yet but he has 12 I/F mares sold/offered so far, they have sold very well. He had a large book, 142, the mares I have looked at represent only 10% of that book, but, 33% are black typed, 54% are winners, includes alot of unraced, 83% are 1/2 or full to atleast 1 blk typed horse, and of those mares they are 1/2 to an average of 2 blk type horses. 8% are blk type producers. Now compared to other new sires that is good. How good I can't say. Not nearly as good as Mineshaft but much better than Flatter. In that group he has mares 1/2 to man from Wicklow and Xtra Heat.
Last edited by el camino on Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Hi Kim
I like them both very much...and they're priced very realistically.
Yonaguska was a very good juvenile and deadheated with City Zip in the G1 Hopeful. He was particularly impressive up to 7 furlongs...and won the G2 Hutcheson and G2 Fall Highweight at three. He had his limitations and never won a race beyond that distance.
Kafwain was a very high-class juvenile from 5 furlongs to a mile and a sixteenth. Only subsequent champion Vindication could outrun him in the BC Juvenile.
He had a short-lived 3 year-old season...but easily won the G2 San Vicente over a very good field which included subsequent super-star Southern Image.
Both Kafwain and Yonaguska are sired by the very popular champion sprinter and successful sire Cherokee Run. Both should have plenty of market appeal...but Kafwain was definitely the higher-class race horse.
The Coolmore/Tabor guys owned Yonaguska but they didn't want him as a stallion...despite the fact they paid nearly $2 mil for him...They sold him to the Vinery...
...on the other hand Ahmed Salman (Thoroughbred Corp) owned Kafwain and probably would have enjoyed supporting him...but the Prince died...and Darley bought him. I expect he'll get a big boost from Darley.
They'll both be interesting...but I'll put a stack of chips on Kafwain...and a half a stack on Yonaguska.
Respectfully
I like them both very much...and they're priced very realistically.
Yonaguska was a very good juvenile and deadheated with City Zip in the G1 Hopeful. He was particularly impressive up to 7 furlongs...and won the G2 Hutcheson and G2 Fall Highweight at three. He had his limitations and never won a race beyond that distance.
Kafwain was a very high-class juvenile from 5 furlongs to a mile and a sixteenth. Only subsequent champion Vindication could outrun him in the BC Juvenile.
He had a short-lived 3 year-old season...but easily won the G2 San Vicente over a very good field which included subsequent super-star Southern Image.
Both Kafwain and Yonaguska are sired by the very popular champion sprinter and successful sire Cherokee Run. Both should have plenty of market appeal...but Kafwain was definitely the higher-class race horse.
The Coolmore/Tabor guys owned Yonaguska but they didn't want him as a stallion...despite the fact they paid nearly $2 mil for him...They sold him to the Vinery...
...on the other hand Ahmed Salman (Thoroughbred Corp) owned Kafwain and probably would have enjoyed supporting him...but the Prince died...and Darley bought him. I expect he'll get a big boost from Darley.
They'll both be interesting...but I'll put a stack of chips on Kafwain...and a half a stack on Yonaguska.
Respectfully