Tom Pritchard-Gordon
Badgers Bloodstock
It might be an unpopular opinion, but personally I would be wary of a cap on stallion book sizes. Adding red tape and restrictions to a free market hasn’t appeared to benefit other industries of late. Furthermore, the likes of Wootton Bassett, Havana Grey, Dark Angel, Kodiac etc show that class will out and can succeed regardless of a lowly start.
Obviously, the main benefit to capping the stallion book sizes is trying to counter the concentration of the gene pool, which is far from healthy for the thoroughbred breed. However, the increased globalisation of the thoroughbred industry appears to be the most logical way of stemming the tide – hopefully the opening up of South Africa to Europe will help in this regard.
It should be noted that sire power is most keenly felt in the sales ring, much more than on the racecourse. Therefore, if there were to be tweaks to capping numbers, perhaps an innovative sales company might cap the number of offspring per stallion for their yearling sales? There would be no need for rules and regulations, just an interesting marketing ploy… pie in the sky stuff I feel!
David Menuisier
Group 1-winning trainer
I’ve said it before, I think we need a cap on numbers for stallions, and also on trainers for that matter, as it would reshuffle the cards. Also, the way we judge who is the best stallion is fake because it takes no account of the number of mares they cover. If they were all limited to the same number of mares, we would have a much better idea of which is best.
It will never happen though, as the industry is controlled by the biggest operators, for whom it would not be in their interests for the cards to be reshuffled. It plays to their advantage for things to stay the way they are, with their stallions covering vast numbers of mares, and some of them operating in both hemispheres. Historically that’s how a lot of their money was made.
I’m not going to be silly and if somebody wanted to send me a Dubawi or a Frankel then of course I would welcome it, but personally when I look at foals and yearlings, I pay more attention to the dam’s side rather than the sire’s, as I think that side is more important. We’ve been extremely successful with the offspring of lesser stallions, like Makfi, Exchange Rate and Soldier Hollow for example.
I’m not alone in my thinking. Look at the success of the Aga Khan, who has said himself he pays more attention to the dam’s side. Very few of his horses are by what are generally viewed as the top stallions.
Colin Bryce
Breeder and TBA Board member
It seems to me that this would not really be feasible. Constraining folks’ actions in a free market would not be something I would support philosophically. I also suspect it would fall foul of some regulation or other.
The successful – and therefore expensive – stallions don’t present a problem. So constraining books beyond what some farms already do themselves wouldn’t be necessary anyway.
For the lesser lights and those who use them, I guess the pain of the market reality these days will just get worse until people drift away from breeding racehorses, having had enough of bringing unsold stock home from sales. It takes time, but in the end the numbers covered by the unsuccessful stallions will fall away.
The problem for breeding in the UK and Ireland is down to prize-money on the track. That is where the focus of all the administrators of this disaggregated, disparate business with all their vested interests should be focused.
Chris Richardson
Managing Director of Cheveley Park Stud
The most important thing is we want to encourage the standing of stallions in England. Whilst I think there is a strong case for a restriction on book sizes, the natural desire for breeders to use the most popular sires is something that we need to accommodate. The cap has been considered, both here and in America, and the industry has said this is not something we wish to implement.
I think that the Great British Bonus and Great British Bonus Plus will be a huge help to stallions in this country, especially for horses like Ulysses, who has been a challenge to stand despite having had a phenomenal year. We’ve got to try and stimulate interest in middle-distance stallions over the more commercial, sharper types.
That said, our business model and our client base – over 40 years – has been based around speed, with Music Boy, Primo Dominie, Prince Sabo, Polar Falcon, Pivotal and Dutch Art. All the stallions we stood could be marketed and proved popular, and now we’re returning to those roots with Vandeek. He’ll hopefully be very well received and attract more commercial breeders and, more importantly, smaller breeders as well as those from abroad.
It’s so difficult to get a stallion – when you’re lucky enough to stand a dual Group 1 winner with exceptional credentials, you want breeders to support you. We need to build our stallion portfolios in the UK rather than lose out to other commercial stud farms in Europe.
Chris Wright
Owner-breeder and ROA Board member
I’d agree that some stallions are covering too many mares, and so there are too many yearlings by the same ones. I can remember when a stallion would cover no more than 100 or so mares in a season – now for some it’s nearly 200, and that’s without doing the southern hemisphere as well.
If their books were reduced then there would be fewer [progeny], but their price would go up and so the stallion manager isn’t necessarily losing out, while those who are using the stallion will pay more but have a rarer commodity.
Under a capped system, breeders would have to use other stallions, and that would give more chance to those further down the totem pole and create more diversity. Some take a bit of time to establish themselves – Wootton Bassett, for example, wasn’t always a top stallion – and the more chances those stallions lower down the order get, the more chance there is of something developing, which would be a good thing.
But who is going to tell people they have to reduce their stallion’s book of mares? I’m not sure the structure is there to make it happen. And if we agree that we need to reduce the numbers, then reduce by how much?
Let’s say a stallion can cover no more than 120 mares. The fees for those who were covering more than that will go up. Stallions a bit further down the list will get more mares, and their price would probably go up too, and then there will still be the mares for those who are perhaps not quite so hot.
It’s a tricky one. In short, I think it’s a good idea, but it’s hard to determine what the figures should be, while it would also be difficult to regulate.
