STUD FEE CHANGE FOR CURLIN
Edited Press Release
The 2010 stud fee for two-time Horse of the Year CURLIN, who stands at Mr. and Mrs. William S. Farish’s Lane’s End Farm near Versailles, Kentucky, has been reduced to $40,000 stands and nurses.
In a statement released today, majority owner Jess Jackson discussed the decision:
“We are delighted with the three CURLIN foals that we’ve seen so far, and are eagerly awaiting our home bred CURLIN babies.
We also know that times are tough for our friends in the breeding business. To continue to attract the best book of mares for CURLIN and further help our breeders, we have decided to lower CURLIN’s fee for the 2010 breeding season to $40,000.”
A classic winner of seven Grade 1 events, CURLIN is North America’s richest racehorse with earnings of $10,501,800. CURLIN, who entered stud last year, is by Lane’s End’s two-time leading sire Smart Strike.
Tags: Curlin, horse of the year, jess jackson, lane's end farm, smart strike, Versailles, William S. Farish
January 27th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
I truly wish the connections the best, but also ask what safety net (in any form) will the connections be contributing to retirement or humane euthasia for all the equines involved? What is the book limitation?
Mr. Jackson? Got any contract conditions to ensure same? Is RA even considering Meydahn? Any race with Queen Z on the schedule?
Until then, happy winemaking.
January 28th, 2010 at 1:20 am
D. Masters, in the 2009 report of mares bred, Curlin got lucky 131 times. Not bad for an unproven commodity. Of course, it pales in comparison to what the big conglomerates are turning out: Giant’s Causeway was bred to 194, and Medaglia d’Oro the same.
Interestingly, in 2008 under previous ownership, Medaglia was bred to 114 mares — but 153 in 2007.
January 28th, 2010 at 6:54 am
I just don’t understand why a small portion of every stud fee, auction or sales price couldn’t be put into a trust for end of life issues for these horses.
I just don’t understand…so much money and at the end of their breeding or racing career so many of these noble souls are butchered alive. Not even any money to euth them humanely.
It is very sad.
January 28th, 2010 at 7:39 am
Behaving in a responsible, ethical, moral manner? That’s an interesting concept.
January 28th, 2010 at 8:26 am
I am a big believer that the Jockey Club should put a cap on the number of mares bred to a stallion. Simple case of supply and demand.
January 28th, 2010 at 11:42 am
Well, at the risk of staying on topic with the original article, and not getting sucked into some silly discussion about what private individuals do with their money, I’d like to think this is an unusual drop in stud fee. I’m a huge Curlin fan, so don’t get me wrong - I think it’s unusual that the fee was just recently dropped. That can mean only one thing (and if I’m wrong, please tell me), and that is that he doesn’t have a full book of mares for 2010. And if so, why? A $10M+ winner? Unproven, yes, but it’s not like his fee was originally set at $150,000.
January 28th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Well, TomF, what’s a “full book”? Is it 200? Is it 150? Is it 100?
And btw, of course you can do what you want with your money –assuming it’s legal. But I also hope you would behave in a moral and ethical manner.
January 28th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Well, tiznowbaby, despite your condescending holier-than-thou attitude (which I’m sure is extremely effective when trying to convince people of your beliefs), if he was my horse, I’d probably limit it to 85. What I’ve never understood is the lack of supply and demand attitude in this industry. If I book him to 131 mares at $65,000 each (assuming 100% success, for purposes of discussion only), that’s $8,515,000. Wouldn’t 85 bookings at $100,000 make sense? It creates a demand. That gives me more room to move the number down. What am I missing here? And if anyone says that people book 125 times and more to make more money, then you haven’t understood what I’ve written or my question.
January 28th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Tom F,
Nicely put
January 28th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Gee TomF, I feel like this is a pot meets kettle situation.
January 28th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
And I meant to add (and not in a condescending holier-than-thou manner but sincerely), do you think they could book him to 85 mares at $100,000? In this climate, I’m thinking no.
January 28th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Tom, if the market would bear 100k for a horse, that is what he would stand for. It is called supply and demand and there would not be a demand at 100k. If you go in too high, no one calls. If you are too low, you are not perceived as good value and don’t attract the quality of mare that you need for a good book. Curlin would have done quite well in the previously inflated market that loved unproven horses.
Curlin is far from alone as a 2nd year unproven horse that needs to have his fee dropped. He should not have been listed at 60 to begin with in this market for 2010.
January 29th, 2010 at 9:32 am
Since the market and “proven” sire timeline are so erratic, subjective and delayed as a qualifier, pricing isn’t what determines quality. Secretariat comes to mind. Still don’t understand why a horse like that goes down at what? 19? And aren’t his mares in the broodmare market sought after now? Yes, different market.
My point is that whether the reduction is a function of demand, sire quality or the race/world economies, I hope his (Curlin’s) connections are thinking long term (4-7 years down the pike). Takes a long time to breed champions.
Mr. Jackson appears to consider himself and his racing abilities as a cut above the rest in the industry. This is good if implemented properly with the horses’ welfare first and foremost.
I guess another question(s) would be: Is Curlin in a limited book situation? And are the mares scrutinized or is it, pony up the cash and you have him? Maybe Mr. Jackson and Farrish should painfully scrutinize the breeders/owners and their longevity success and care records before the price consideration as priority.
We will see.